Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Most Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is the only source concerning faith. According to them, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative, teaching Church. All that they need is the Bible in order to learn about the faith and to live a Christian life. The "Bible Alone" teaching can be appealing in its simplicity, but it suffers from fundamental problems. A few are considered here.
First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]
According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:
I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]
Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:
...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]
St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]
These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.
A second problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is canonicity - i.e. which Books belong in the Bible? It must be remembered that the Books of the Bible were written individually along with other religious books. Centuries later the Church compiled together the inspired Books under one cover to form the "Bible." A big question in the early Church was which books are the inspired written Word of God. (Inspired=written by men but authored by God; See Catechism of the Catholic Church 106.)
Scripture did not come with an "inspired" Table of Contents. Nowhere in the sacred texts are all the Books listed. There are some Books cited in the sacred writings but these lists are vague and incomplete (Acts 28:23; 2 Peter 3:16). There are also references to books not found in the Bible, such as St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). St. Paul even encourages the Colossians to read this epistle, but still it is not in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospel never attempts to list the "official" Books of the Old Testament (OT). This issue was hotly debated in His day. Today Protestant and Catholic Christians disagree over which Books belong in the OT. Catholics follow the list in the Septuagint (2nd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) while Protestants follow the list used by the Pharisees. A list from Jesus could have eliminated this problem, but no such list is found in the Gospel. As a result the Bible needs a visible authority outside of itself to list the inspired sacred Books. This authority must be guided by the Holy Spirit since these Books are from the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians claim that the Table of Contents in their Bible lists the inspired Books. Even though found in modern Bibles, the Table of Contents is still not inspired. It is not the Word of God but words added later by human editors, much similar to footnotes. The Table of Contents is basically the opinion of the publishing editor. Others may claim that the closing verses in the Book of Revelation, specifically Rev. 22:18-19, cap off the Bible and define all the preceding Books as inspired by God. But do these verses apply to the whole Bible or only the Book of Revelation? Another flaw with this idea is that not all Bibles have the same number of Books. As alluded to above, Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain different numbers of OT Books, yet all these Bibles close with the same verses: Rev. 22:18ff. Both cannot be right. Finally the Book of Deuteronomy contains similar verses (4:2 & 12:32). Does this imply that the Books after Deuteronomy are not inspired by God? No.
A third problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is proper understanding of critical Bible passages. Most Protestant Christians promote personal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. anyone can interpret these passages by himself. Unfortunately this leads to chaos. For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation. Sadly the "Yellow Pages" phone directory is a witness to the many "Bible-Based" churches who disagree with each other over key issues of the Christian faith. Personal interpretation of the Bible naturally leads to a mire of human doctrines as a result of differing personal opinions.
The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, letters, songs, etc. - requiring different ways of understanding. Sometimes Jesus in the Gospel purposely taught in figurative language and parables, which makes literal interpretation impossible. Even St. Peter admits that St. Paul's Epistles can be difficult to understand:
...Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [2 Peter 3:15-16]
Finally the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30ff needed St. Philip to explain the Book of Isaiah. Obviously not everyone can understand the meaning of Scripture by simply reading it. More is required. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Even the Bible points to the importance of the Church for teaching the Truth. According to St. Peter in the Bible:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]
At least prophecies in the Bible are not a matter of personal interpretation. These prophesies must be properly interpreted by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" since the Holy Spirit is the Author. These "men" are the Bishops of the Church - the successors to the Apostles (Acts 20:28-32). Finally the Bible does not call itself the bulwark of the truth; however, St. Paul does make reference to the Church in those terms:
...the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]
According to the Bible, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
All Christians, including Catholics, should read the Bible in order to grow more in the faith; however, we still need the Church. The Church is needed to accurately pass on Apostolic Tradition (Romans 10:17), define the canon of the Bible (i.e. list the inspired Books), safeguard the accurate transmission (e.g. translations) of the Bible and interpret key passages, all with guidance from the Holy Spirit according to God's Will. The Church is needed for other reasons too. It must be understood that the Church is not merely men making arbitrary decisions but men executing authority from God guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church may at times be tested by scandals or scarred by the sins of men. We may sometimes disagree with the policies of the Church, but she is still the instrument of the Holy Spirit. This visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18-19; John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.
In the end, this seems to be a matter of the will. The ‘super pseudo-rationalist’ makes a choice....
Evidently some people feel they cannot be entirely "free" if there's a God. Their idea of freedom is essentially "freedom from." They do not see that freedom in its essence is "freedom for." The latter is at the root of the American idea of liberty.
But now I'm probably digressing, so had better stop here.
Thank you ever so much, dearest brother in Christ, for your insightful essay/post!
I completely agree.
But now I'm probably digressing, so had better stop here.
All;
Somehow, I think the following link and discourse on the
Jezebel spirit
touches on this sidebar and a lot of others . . .
Certainly facets of the Jezebel spirit have increasingly begun afflicting churches, the public square, government, attitudes and behaviors of folks far and wide.
We would be wise to be alert and resist the enemy at every turn—within and without.
Seductive nuances can be subtle or brazen and everywhere in between.
Our focus, our goals, our manner, our strategies, our ways need to be from His heart wrapped in His Blood and Spirit directed at His priorities and goals.
Blessed be the Name of The Lord.
Here’s the link:
Are you a practicing Catholic in agreement with and in line with dogmatic Church teaching,bb? Such as.. Confession, Real Presence in Eucharist, Assumption Of Mary, Immaculate Conception etc...
INDEED.
However, they can’t even get
FREEDOM FROM
very right.
They wholesale neglect FREEDOM FROM:
—suicidal philosophies and behaviors;
—suicidal arrogance;
—suicidal self-absorption;
—suicidal selfishness;
—suicidal using and abusing of their own bodies and of others;
—suicidal fantasies that one can sow poison and destruction and not reap the same;
—suicidal craziness that it’s reasonable to do the same absurd things over and over and expect a better outcome;
—suicidal myopic vision that their willfully chosen, wholesale biased tunnel vision is a picture of all that is;
—suicidal notion that they are better at judging anything; understanding anything; knowing anything better than God Almighty;
. . .
They seem to construe themselves as some sort of exalted Ayan Rand or Marxist NEW ORDER OF BEING that’s left the shackles of such spiritual perspectives in the ‘discredited’ dust of philosophical backwater shanty wide spots in the road of life.
They seem to think that the
FREEDOM to
—contract an endless string of STD’s;
—attempt to sleep with piles of earned guilt;
—use, abuse, sabotage and cheat their closest loved ones;
—manipulate, coerce, !!!!CONTROL!!!!, torture, play sadistic, self-serving games with . . . others;
—flaunt whatever personally FEELS GOOD TO THE FLESH;
—wallow in various levels and varieties of various addictions 24/7;
—be awash in existential and interpersonal isolation, angst and desperation;
—rant, rail, scream, pontificate shrilly etc. against ALMIGHTY GOD
. . .
that all such “FREEDOMS”
are somehow maximally LIBERATING FREEDOMS of the highest order
when
actually they are chief tools of maximum enslavement by the Dark UNLord himself.
Have they no clue?
Dreadfully sad.
Thanks for your true,
kind and generous reply.
Blessed be the Name of The Lord.
My impression is that
in terms of the parable of the rich young ruler . . .
Betty has already sold all she has and given it to the poor in her heart and probably a lot of other ways.
That is, she has already sold out to Jesus Christ lock, stock, barrel, fantasies, preferences, habits, goals, relationships and property.
Given that . . . your list is pretty petty, imho.
Jesus tells us in Matthew 7 that we can discern the tree by looking at its fruits. And the fruits of the Spirit are these:
It is for that reason I call her "my dearest sister in Christ!"
Amen. Thanks for an affirming reply.
I only know her hereon.
However, though my vision is long beyond 20/20, I can see plenty well enough to see our Dear Sister's heart for The Lord.
And the issues of life and eternity are always settled in the heart first and foremost.
And that therefore, such a list for Betty = pretty petty.
There. Got the chance for the alliteration I missed the first round. LOL.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
I don’t know if you’re aware or not . . .
scientists have discovered that there’s quite a cluster of
BRAIN CELLS
in/on the heart.
They don’t quite know what to make of the findings.
Fascinating . . . given all the Bible has to say about the ‘heart’ of man.
I never doubted that for a minute,she exudes much love,much like you do as well.
According to the Bible Jesus was raised by God. How does that make him God? Obviously his Resurrection could not have been part of his "God-ness." It was only later that the Church changed the biblical words of St. Paul (1 Cor 15:4) in the Creed by stating that he rose from the dead, "And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures," to harmonize it in accord with the dogmatic pronouncements of the first and second Ecumenical Councils centuries later (325 and 381 AD).
Paul considered Jesus closer to a Platonic ideal man "in the form" (Gr. morphe – external appearance, ergo not in nature or essence!) of God" and asserts that "for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Cor 8:6), clearly distinguishing the two as not one and the same.
As for the miracles, that was given to him, as it was later given to his human disciples who could heal with their shadow and raise people from the dead. So, miracles are also not an indication of Jesus' "God-ness" as you say.
In addition to that, the Resurrected Jesus admits that only the Father (i.e. God) knows the future (Acts 1:7), thereby admitting his "man-ness," rather than his "God-ness."
The account of Jesus Transformation (Matthew 17, Mark 9, Luke 9) on Mount Tabor also denies his "God-ness," until then (and then it was only what was to come in the future).
Even though John has Thomas saying, "My lord and my God." (John 20:28), after inserting his fingers into Jesus' wounds (which means his glorified body would be imperfect!), in that very same chapter John's has this same divine Jesus call the Father his God (John 20:17)! God calling God his God? But this self-contradicting inerpolational witness is typical of John*.
*[NB for more on John's Gospel I recommend Robert M. Grant's "The Gospel of John" analysis. Grant has been a bible scholar at the U. of Chicago for over 30 years]
The New Testament account portrays Jesus as a man (think of his prayer in Gethsemane) who knows he is God's favorite who is greater than men, but definitely lesser than God (cf. John 14:28). The two greatest Apostles, Peter for example, refer to Jesus as a man even after his Resurrection (Acts 4:10), as does Paul (Romans 5:15, 1 Tim 2:5), who also asserts that God is higher than Christ ("man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." – 1 Cor 11:3)
Paul even suggests in the Phillipians that Christ was made in the likeness of men (Phil 2:7) and calls him the firstborn of all creation, i.e. a creature (Colosians 1:15).
This suggests that many early Christians, including obviously Peter and Paul, believed he was a man, who in the best case was made divine only after the Resurrection, and even that is questionable. Consider that some of his own 11 remaining disciples, who saw knew the Resurrected Jesus doubted him to the last day! (cf Mat 28:17)
Thus all references to Jesus as a man, even a celestial ideal Platonic man, still portrays him as a creature. Even in his external appearance of God (an image of God, but not God), he was never worshiped by the apostles (except in the manner appropriate for earthly lords, cf Mat 28:17).
This flies in the face of the dogmatic Christian beliefs. The Incarnation and the miraculous birth are thereby put in question (cf Gal 4:4), for he was "born of a woman according to the Law."
In adiditon tot hat the Biblical accounts strongly suggests two contradicting beliefs regarding Jesus late divinization, suggests Jesus was adopted (made divine) either after his baptism or after his resurrection (Luke associates resurrection with Psalm 2:7 "You are my son, today I have begotten you"). And this tells us that early Christians did not believe in Incarnation or the miraculous birth of Jesus.
However, this also stands in stark contrast to John's latter-day Gospel account written some 66 years after Christ (c. 99 AD), when all the other eyewitnesses were already dead and with Christianity in dire straits, who launches a novel idea that Jesus is the eternal divine Logos who became flesh (cf John 1:1, 1:14).
There's no wonder it took the Church some 300 years to synchronize the story and choreograph the faith. Save for for John, The NT does not portray earthly Jesus as divine, or being Incarnate.
That's how I see it, for what it's worth. I am ready, I have my flak jacket and my Kevlar pot on. :)
Hmmm, Catholics are not in-your-face type of people, I doubt too many would stoop so low.
Now I know why Notre Dame football has been hurting....
So very true, dear betty. Their apparent inability to discern the contrast between their wish for freedom from religion and a constitutional vision of freedom of religion, is a stark revelation of the confusion residing in their minds respecting the whole range of the issue.
Thanks for the beep, boop. Always a pleasure. And, thanks to you Quix for your efforts (and to all the others whose contributions are what makes this thread cook).
Thanks for your kind reply.
Have a blessed week with those you love.
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.