Posted on 01/07/2012 6:00:19 PM PST by rzman21
Did you read for yourself Webster's arguments in their entirety? I provided links to two such essays. Please, write the man a letter.
AUGUSTINE
“Christ was carried in his Own Hands when, referring to His Own Body, he said, ‘This is My Body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that Body in His Hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
Do you see it in his own words now? Wow!
How could you miss what he means here? hello.
You didn’t say ecumenism was a fraud. I did.
Gods version of Gods word.
>>The problem isn’t what God’s word says. The problem is with what Protestants say the Bible means.
What is divisive is the closing sentence “I look forward to what the Protestants can find from the early church. “.
>>How is this divisive? Protestantism has nothing in common with the early Church.
Are you sure? It seems to me that if those churches were truly "agnostic" on this matter that there would be more creationists in those churches. Yet there are almost none, and the media of those churches constantly attack and ridicule young earth creationism. Why would church media be so partisan if the churches are "agnostic" in the matter of evolution and Genesis 1-11?
Since you were so kind as to answer my question, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you another one.
Why are the ancient apostolic churches "agnostic" on the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 when they are for the literal truth of such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, the "real presence," the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and even such things as Mary making the sun dance in Portugal in 1917? What is there about the first eleven chapters of Genesis (be honest now) that makes it different from all these other things?
As I am asking for honesty from you, I will be honest myself. I believe the reason for treating Genesis 1-11 differently from the rest of the bible is nothing other than sociological prejudice against the people with whom those chapters are associated--ie, rural American "rednecks." Is there any other reason why Genesis 1-11 should be a parable while everything in the new testament (and in post-NT chrstian history such as the Portuguese sun dance) is literally true?
I would not even begin to criticize it if I did not.
“fwiw the USA & latin american evangelical and charismatic churchs are all increasing their membership. there are different interpretations of the bible for example differences between arminians and calvinists. but they are all considered to be within the pale of orthodoxy as are the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.”
The problems with the evangelicals and the charismatic folks, isn’t one of membership, and I think you are very right about Arianism and the ‘low view’ of Christ. The problem is the leadership.
What we are seeing is a consistant pattern. A church rebels against the Catholic church, has a period of consistant growth, gets big, votes itself in a paster who is an Arian and then collapses, only to form other new ‘churches’ governed along the exact same pattern.
Look at Methodism? Is there anything substantially different from what we are seeing with the evangelicals, from the Methodist movement in the 19th century? Same principle. You look at the Methodists now, and they are turning away from Orthodoxy.
Provided that the Catholic church continues to reject contraception, she will be the only one standing. All the others will contracept themselves out of existence and fall under Arianism again.
What did the Early Church have in common with the version Protestant kids learn about in Sunday School?
Why would church media be so partisan if the churches are “agnostic” in the matter of evolution and Genesis 1-11?
>>Ignorance.
Why are the ancient apostolic churches “agnostic” on the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 when they are for the literal truth of such things as the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, the “real presence,” the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and even such things as Mary making the sun dance in Portugal in 1917? What is there about the first eleven chapters of Genesis (be honest now) that makes it different from all these other things?
>>Because the early Jews didn’t interpret the beginning of Genesis literally.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html
Genesis is a book of theology, not a book of science.
But someone could not be termed a heretic under canonical penalty for teaching a young Earth belief.
For crying out loud, we have people like Robert Sungenis running around claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth, yet no one has bothered to canonically censure him.
The Fatima miracle is approved by the Church as a matter of pious belief, but no one is required to believe in it.
SPARE THE ACTUAL WORDS OF AUGUSTINE? Wow! I would go to the original source material than just read a view only. What logic is this to learn by in quoting the Early Church Fathers? This does not make sense.
"Do yourself a favor do not just go by statements from this "scholar" check him out. Unlike many here, he takes pains to document and footnote his own sources."
Yes! Like a lawyer whose client/subject view is guilty!! He is not totally objective by any means.
Luther brought a much needed correction on some issues, particularly the sale of indulgences, but where did that get him with the Church, but to be much maligned and hated to this very day?
When we see "the church" going against what is plainly written, then it is by reason one must oppose such, even if only by words and discussion.
Authors like Webster help peel up the musty layers, allowing one to get another peek at how some doctrines and dogmas, slipped and slid away from original, earliest usage, not to mention the sense of meaning one gets from a plain reading of the scriptural texts themselves.
Compare the Didache to what came about later. There wasn't an wholesale change, but one of degrees, leading away from the communion of believers and their thanks giving which in later years changed the meaning of the root form of the greek, to the capitalized "Eucharist" with all it's freighted meanings, for example. This later freight, and cargo of other kinds (of that not explicitly found in scripture) one can all but see being constructed bit by bit.
From one of the links again, for the man has addressed points which you raise, and the circular logic in evidence supporting them.
Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.3
At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings — the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:
The obvious problem with Newman’s analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent’s rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome’s definition of development and Vincent’s are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:
First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent’s criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, ‘Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin?’6 Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.
But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.
In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.
From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome’s teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as ‘living tradition.’ This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome’s magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.7
This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition — whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce — whatever we say. Another illustration of this reality relates to the teaching of the Assumption of Mary from the French Roman Catholic historian, Joussard:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought — as some theologians still do today under one form or another — to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission.8
Could not the same be said for yourself, but even more so?
“Protestantism has nothing in common with the early Church.”
It has Jesus, which is really all that matters.
Protestantism doesn’t have idols, they don’t worship men or place men in between themselves and salvation. They have the truth of the way to salvation, the love of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins all through the grace of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Pardon my bluntness, but I don't think you have the slightest idea of how traditional Orthodox Jews interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Have you ever read a traditional Jewish commentary on Genesis? Rashi, for example, or RaMBa"N? Or are you just mindlessly repeating something you've been fed?
You didn't seem to notice that I wasn't referring to the so-called "creation account" in Genesis, but to the entire first eleven chapters. This portion covers not only the creation but also the Flood, the Dispersal, and the first twenty generations of mankind from Adam to Abraham. Please kindly address this issue instead of hiding behind the creation account.
Are there allegorical interpretations of Genesis in Judaism? Of course there are. But Genesis is part of the Torah, and as part of the Torah its literal sense is true in addition to all the other senses (which are called derash, remez, and sod--concepts I doubt you have ever heard of in your life).
The actual events of creation are beyond human comprehension. There are people to whom this knowledge has been transmitted, but neither you nor I am among them. I am not defending the notion that a surface reading of a translation of the first two chapters of Genesis tells the readers everything that happened. I am saying that what Genesis does record must be factual as well as "true" (I notice you liturgical chrstians are big fans of "non-factual truth," whatever that is--Santa Claus, I assume). I am saying that one should not be free to dismiss these chapters as parables with no connection to what actually happened as so many apostolic chrstians do. Genesis 1-11 (and the rest of the Torah) was not written by savages espousing a pre-scientific worldview; it was written by G-d and dictated to Moses letter for letter. How dare you or anyone treat this text as the pre-scientific religious parables of mere people? Because in order to dismiss all the data of Genesis 1-11 to religious allegory this is precisely what you must do, and this is precisely what no traditional Orthodox Jew, no matter how rationalist or allegorical, has ever done.
My Stone TaNa"KH has a chart in the back giving the dates of the births and deaths of these ancient generations. Does your Catholic bible do the same?
Genesis is a book of theology, not a book of science.
If I only had a penny for every time I heard that! Let me ask you something: is the gospel of Luke a "book of science" because it insists on a baby being born of a virgin, which is scientifically impossible? Is the new testament a book of science for insisting on the resurrection of this man after his death, which is also scientifically impossible? Why are you becoming an anti-scientific obscurantist with regard to these events, each of which is equally impossible as the creation as narrated in the first three chapters of Genesis? I ask you again, what's the difference? Are you saying that cosmogony is somehow uniquely outside the pale of theology (and solely a matter for science to explain) whereas virgins having babies or dead mean coming back to life is not? Are you? Is that what you're saying? It sounds like it is. And I must tell you it smacks of hypocrisy. No, I take that back; it doesn't "smack of" hypocrisy. It is the very height of hypocrisy to agree with Fundamentalist Protestants on all these "new testament miracles" while suddenly pulling out the "science" and "allegory" cards when it comes to Genesis. And if you are an intellectually honest person you know this.
For crying out loud, we have people like Robert Sungenis running around claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth, yet no one has bothered to canonically censure him.
I actually used to like Bob Sungenis. I've corresponded with the man. But unfortunately he went stark raving crazy when it came to the Jews and is now a flaming anti-Semite who blames everything (including Biblical modernism) on the Jews and who accuses all his critics of having Jewish ancestors. As a matter of fact, most of the time when I find a Catholic who seems to respect the integrity of Genesis he turns out to be an anti-Semitic loon. Why is this?
The Fatima miracle is approved by the Church as a matter of pious belief, but no one is required to believe in it.
Wow. How nice that a belief in the Fatima "miracles," though not actually required, are permitted. Why is it that the events of Genesis 1-11 are not afforded the same tolerance? Is the simple fact that this narrative is included in the Torah (much less that it leads it off) not sufficient to accord it respect as a "pious belief?" Why is the Catholic Church (and its liturgical fellows) at war with it?
Do you not see the irony here? First you dismiss the events described in Genesis because that book "is a book of theology rather than science" while accepting such non-scientific claptrap as virgin births and dead mean coming back to life because they are also included in "books of theology rather than science." And then you defend the dancing sun as a "pious belief" allowed while not required when both you and I (and every unbiased reader of these comments) can see that the events described in the first eleven chapters of Genesis (and the Book of Jonah too, for that matter) are treated as embarrassments that should have never been heard of outside the trailer park.
Are you quite sure you don't see the same irony and hypocrisy in these positions that I do?
Mas cerveza, I've pinged you all along to this conversation and you haven't said anything. I'm still waiting to hear from you.
They have the truth of the way to salvation, the love of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins all through the grace of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
>>As do all Apostolic Christians.
So the Kennedys and folks like Nancy Pelosi all got subverted by liberalism or are they using their Catholicism as protective coloration?
Both.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/AMERICAN.TXT
I note one final irony. You ascribe the hostility of the liturgical church media to young earth creationism (treating it as if it were actual formal heresy) to “ignorance,” yet the article you posted at the top of this thread calls young earth creationism “disreputable.” Why are you posting articles on FR that by your own definition are full of “ignorance?”
Everyone has it if they want it and are willing to ask.
Dave Armstrong has a rather succinct refutation of William Webster’s misunderstanding of Tradition.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/refutation-of-william-websters.html
You’re actually protecting the kennedys and Pelosi? WOW!
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.