Replies

The level of denial in your post is worthy of comment and sharing...

“That is simple. Each time there is a passage inconvenient for a Protestant, — like the teaching on the Real Presence in 1 Cro. 11, or negation of salvation by faith alone in James 2, — the following happens.”

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that the issue isn’t inconvenience for Protestants, but [likely] an inability on your part to go beyond what you [it seems] predecided the passage meant??

“I simply repeat citing the text, which says what it says.”

Actually, it would be fairer to say you repeat over and over in your posts what the specific word says, without regard to what the passage means when it uses that word. Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it a truth. I have yet to see one of your posts that does more than surface “see and say.”

To be as fair as possible, I see mormons and the occasional Christian make the same mistakes of seeing a word and assuming what it means in that context.

“My Protestant opponent either changes the topic altogether or he begins discussing some passages elsewhere that, he thinks, invalidate the inconvenient one.”

Perhaps if you changed your assumption from “opponent” to fellow believer who disagrees, you would have more enriching discussions?

I have noticed on FR that catholics have difficulty with the concept that the totality of what the Bible teaches about any topic is the source of correct doctrine.

“When all that does not cause me to shift the focus, he whips out the Wonder Weapon: Hermeneutics. Because the word sounds kinda learned at least he can run off with a semblance of making an argument.”

The word hermeneutics does imply that a believer must WORK to “correctly divide the Word of truth” and to “study to show himself approved, a workman who is not ashamed, rightly handling the Word of truth.”

It appears from the entirety of your posts I’ve read, that you have not done the work. No one can make you. They can point out the shoddy character of posts that avoid the real work.

In the case of your posts, you made it clear through your assertions that your version of hermeneutics is (1) to learn what the catholic denomination teaches and then try to find it in Scripture. (2) see a word and assume what it means without any further work. (3) assume that truth is found outside Scripture, which determines what Scripture means.

All of these are false hermeneutics and do not serve you in the long run, if you desire truth.

(4) It appears that your final principle is to post insults to whoever thought they were going to have a real discussion with you.

Your continued reliance on ad hominem attacks against Protestant hermeneutics and Protestant pastors still leaves you short of a single good argument. I would wish you better than that.

“But of course all that he accomplished is to refuse to discuss the key passage because doing so would violate some mysterious Hermeneutics. In short, Protestant hermeneutics is an instrument by which they ignore the Bible.”

Hermeneutics are not mysterious. They are accessible to anyone who is willing to put in the effort (as we are commanded) to learn what God’s Word means.

Best in 2015 to you.

Hermeneutics are not mysterious. They are accessible to anyone who is willing to put in the effort (as we are commanded) to learn what God’s Word means.

Indeed, the rant against hermeneutics is one of the strangest episodes I've ever witnessed here. Not THE strangest. This is FR after all. But strange nonetheless. Hermeneutics is just the science/art of figuring out what a text means. We use hermeneutical techniques every time we read an FR post. The Supreme Court is a merry band of interpreters all trying to apply their preferred hermeneutic to the text of the Constitution. You can critique them for the defects of their respective hermeneutic techniques, but they have no choice but to try and interpret what they are reading. It's how all reading happens. The difference comes in being able to back away from personal biases and use a consistent method of interpretation that forces one to be honest with the text. In constitutional law that would be the conflict between the so-called living Constitution versus original intent versus strict constructionism, etc.

Likewise, one can come to any text with prejudices. If the object is to find out what was really said by the author, one needs a way to put those prejudices in perspective. We can never be entirely objective, and the first rule of hermeneutics is to admit that. Once we know there are mines in the ground, we can try to detect them before they detonate. But going in guns a-blazing as if we have a perfect, automatic knowledge of whatever we read is an invitation to disaster. So we set ourselves some rules. We ask questions. When was it written. Why? Who was the author? Who is the audience? What is the general subject matter. What is the operating vocabulary of that period. What does the grammar tell us. What does the history tell us. What do other documents from the same time period bearing on the same subject tell us. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Yes, I know that sounds like a lot of work, and it is, but the only reason for avoiding it is an unfailing belief in subjective autonomy (self as pope). It's true. Rejection of objective methods for understanding textual authorities lead to the opposite standard, despotic subjectivism, which in turn is the root of moral relativism. This is exactly where the "living Constitution" methodology (if it can be called that) resides. We come to the text as Marxists, and reinvent the meaning according to Marx, or we come to the text as anarchists or hedonists or whatever, and reinvent the text accordingly. We do so supposedly in the name of "keeping up with social evolution," but really its nothing but lawlessness, which is devolution.

Peace,

SR

Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it a truth

I am not repeating falsehoods, I repeat the verses you guys don't like and try to fast forward past them. In your case that was 1 Cor. 11:23-30, which regardless of the larger context speaks of the literal body and blood of Christ. I also explained that the difference in context is illusory: the Catholic Church IS the body of Christ because we EAT the body of Christ.

your assumption from “opponent” to fellow believer

On what basis? I believe in Him Whom God sent fully. You pick and choose your faith based on what your pastor inculcated in you. No sale. convert to the proper Catholic faith and then we shall be fellow believers. Not sooner. You-all certainly have an interest in the teachings of Christ and that is very good, but it does not mean you -- collectively you-all, -- know these teachings from these He sent. You-all formed your own notions. But you-all were not sent. My Church was.

you have not done the work

What work? The Holy Scripture says what it says. No "work" is necessary to figure out that when someone says "this is my body" and then defends the proposition against a bunch or proto-Protestants, He probably means what He says. When something is not clear -- I do the work: I go to the sources, I find hidden quotes from the Old Testament, I compare translations, I find other usages, I study Greek. But these passages are clear. They are so clear you-all couldn't even mistranslate them for 500 years.

ad hominem attacks against Protestant hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is not a hominus to use ad hominems on it. It is a way to lie about the plain meaning of the scripture. It is a method. The method is false.