Posted on 02/09/2015 12:47:13 PM PST by RnMomof7
Perhaps the most important aspect of the continuing controversies between Protestants and Catholics is the area of epistemology, or how we human beings know things--in this case, how we know divine truth. The question "How do you know?" is central to the Catholic polemic as it is presented to Protestants by some of the former's ablest contemporary defenders. 1 Unfortunately, these apologists not only commit a fundamental error in the target they direct this attack against, but they also miss a fatal flaw in their own logic.
The first mistake lies in the confusion of modern "evangelical" Christianity--almost universally identified by Catholic apologists as "fundamentalism"--with the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Many Catholic apologists have honed to near perfection the technique of blasting to smithereens the anti-creedal, anti-historical, anti-intellectual positions of "Bible-Only" fundamentalists. By focusing their attention on the "no creed but Christ" foolishness of the latter and wrongly equating it with the classical Protestant formal principle of Sola Scriptura, they attempt to expose what they believe to be a glaring inconsistency in something they rather generically call "the Protestant view". 2
After discarding this caricature as hopelessly false, the defenders of Rome then attempt to establish the authority of their Church by building a step-by-step inductive argument, or more simply stated, by gratuitously piling up "historical" facts as if such can stand on their own outside of their basic interpretive framework. In so doing, they ironically end up exposing a basic inconsistency in their own apologetic! This inconsistency appears when the Catholic principle of how humans know divine truth meets its Protestant opponent on the field of historical battle. Let us try to follow their reasoning.
The Bible--"Just Another Ancient Book"?
The argument usually begins by admitting up front that it is not going to treat the Scriptures as if they are divinely inspired, but merely as legitimate historical documents. It then proceeds to build a chain of "purely" historical evidence--passages of Scripture, quotations from early Christians and Councils, etc--which is supposed to show that Christ instituted a Church with certain properties, properties which are today found only in the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy.
In a debate on Sola Scriptura with Patrick Madrid (then of Catholic Answers), James White asked Madrid how he could know that the Roman Church is the one true Church. Madrid responded as follows:
This is how I know, Mr. White. I can look independent of what I see in Scripture. In fact, I'm not going to even treat Scripture as an inspired document for the moment, just for the sake of argument. I'm going to look at whether or not a man named Jesus Christ lived. Can I prove that historically? Yes. Can I prove that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead and appeared to many people who as eyewitnesses claimed that He died and rose from the dead? I can prove that. In two minutes I can't prove it for your satisfaction, but I think we would all agree that those things are true. I can demonstrate through non-Christian, unbiased sources, in fact sometimes actually biased against the Christian position, that Jesus Christ instituted a church. We can look at the writings of these early Christians, not only the apostles but also the men and women in the post-apostolic era. I can look at the Scripture and see what, independent of whether or not I believe it is inspired, I can look and see a description of the church that Jesus established. All of you know the verse in Matthew 16 verse 18, "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Mr. White and I would argue all night long over what the rock is, but the fact is Jesus established a church. The next point is that as I look at Scripture I see that the church is described as having certain functions, certain attributes, certain characteristics, certain jobs that it has to perform, and I can compare and find out, well, historically, yes, I can show that that was done, through the writing of the Scriptures. So if I believe that Jesus is God, and I believe that His promise is true that He founded a church, then I have to say, this is the next step, I have to say, does that church, is there a church today which fits that description which is doing all the things that Jesus said. If that's true, if I can find that, and I have, by the way, it's the Catholic Church, then I know that what is described here in this book is the same church that I see today. So when that church tells me, Jesus said in Luke 10:16, "He who listens to you listens to Me, he who refuses to hear you refuses to hear Me," when I hear that Church speak I know that it is Jesus speaking through the church.
Notice that Madrid's argument follows the familiar evidentialist pattern of much of "evangelical" Protestantism, though it is used by him not to establish the authority of the Bible, but of the Roman Church 3 --a fact which reveals that there are two competing ultimate authorities in the debate: Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Magisterium. It is then marshalled against a caricature of the Protestant position--which, it is said, amounts to believing the Bible is inspired simply "because it says it is". 2 I quote Madrid again, from his essay "Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy":
Another problem for Sola Scriptura is the canon of the New Testament. "There's no inspired table of contents" in Scripture that tells us which books belong and which ones don't. That information comes to us from outside Scripture. Our knowledge of which books comprise the canon of the New Testament must be infallible; if not, there's no way to know for sure if the books we regard as inspired really are inspired. it must be binding; otherwise folks would be free to have their own customized canon containing those books they take a fancy to and lacking the ones they don't. And it must be a part of divine revelation; if it's not it's merely a tradition of men, and if that were so, Protestants would be forced into the intolerable position of championing a canon of purely human origin.
The Catholic doesn't have this problem, claim Madrid and the others, because he has an external authority--the Church--to tell him that the Bible is inspired and which books are contained in it. Madrid continues:
Sola Scriptura becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the Catholic asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible. Under the Sola Scriptura rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vaccuum, since it and the veracity of its contents "dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church." [quoting the Westminster Confession of Faith]. If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place? The answer is, you can't. Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Magisterium, endowed with Christ's own teaching authority (c.f., Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18; Luke 10:16) guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:13), and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not. As soon as Protestants begin to appeal to the canons drawn up by this or that Father, or this or that council, they immediately concede defeat, since they are forced to appeal to the very "testimony of man and Church" that they claim not to need.
The problem with this line of reasoning should be manifestly obvious. Notice the numerous Scriptural references Madrid cites as part of his proof that we need the Church to tell us what the Scriptures are. Since he has already told us that no one (particularly Protestants, of course) can know the Scriptures apart from the witness of the Church, how then can he cite these passages of Scripture as part of his "proof" for how he knows those Scriptures in the first place?
The problem is particularly acute when we examine the central passage of Scripture Madrid cited--Matthew 16:18-19. These verses supposedly imply that the Church will be infallible (so that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it). But on the Catholic premise that the infallible witness of the institutional body of bishops is necessary in order for one to "know for sure" that the book of Matthew is legitimate while, say, the Gospel of Thomas is not, how can the book of Matthew be used as part of a "proof" of the existence of that infallible body of bishops? Thus, the Roman apologist uses Scripture to support his claims about the infallible Church and then inconsistently asserts that no one can know what Scripture is until the infallible Church tells him so!
These facts show us that despite the assertion that the authority of the Roman Church can be "proven" by the use of the New Testament records "merely" as legitimate historical records, exactly the opposite is occurring. Madrid and all Catholic apologists who use this type of argument are tacitly assuming from the get-go that they "know for sure" what books are trustworthy historical records, nay, even infallible historical records! On what basis do they reject the numerous heretical writings, many of which also claim to be presenting the "catholic" (universal) faith?
Those Marvelous, Unbiased, Infallible Catholic Historians
But the problems don't stop with this disingenous use of Scripture.4 Catholic apologists treat all of Church history with the same question-begging, "neutral" evidentialism. I will not even attempt to get into detailed refutations of Catholic historical points as historical points. Such is beyond the limited scope of this essay, and at any rate, has been done by others far better than I ever could. 5 My focus is on the inconsistent epistemology that is used by the Catholic apologists.
If we were to take the principle that such apologists apply exclusively against Sola Scriptura and make it into a general principle, it would be this: infallible external confirmation is a prerequisite for any claim to "know for sure" that a chosen ultimate authority is the correct one. Very well. If this principle is true, we should rightly expect Catholics to jump at the chance to show us such an infallible external proof for their Church, especially if they are going to parade through the town square proclaiming that Sola Scriptura is invalid because it has no infallible external proof. It seems obvious that if the identity and supreme authority of Scripture must be "proven" by means of an infallible external authority, then so must the identity and supreme authority of "the Catholic Church".
Oddly, this challenge goes unanswered. Though Catholic apologists often like to point out that even heretics quote the Bible in support of their errors, I have yet to find even one Catholic apologist who honestly attempts to grapple with the fact that many heretics (both past and present) also claim to be "the Catholic Church". 6 With tongue in cheek, I must ask these apologists how they can "know for sure" that the particular organization they are defending is the real "Catholic Church". How do they "know for sure" that the Protestant Reformers--or for that matter, the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses--weren't right after all?
Never ones to follow the supposedly Mormon-esque "I know its true because I feel it in my heart" tactic they wrongly attribute to classical Protestants, these heroically "objective" warriors tell us they have an answer to our query. They ask us to wait patiently while they zealously weld into place beam after beam of historical data, following a blueprint only they can see. Soon, they point proudly to the veritable skyscraper they have built, and note with triumph that its shadow overwhelms the pitiful shack of Protestant "novelties" that were seemingly spun from whole cloth barely five centuries ago.
Unfortunately for them, this massive edifice of historical trivia turns out to be utterly useless as a "proof". This is so because the very apologists who are compiling the evidence are not themselves infallible, and so, on their own criterion of knowledge, they cannot really "know for sure" that they are dealing with history fairly. How do they "know for sure" that they have not left some relevant historical facts out of the picture, or allowed their own peculiar biases to warp their reading of history, or perhaps even that the "historical" sources they are drawing upon are not clever frauds which have simply not been detected yet? 7
All these questions reveal that the use of historical evidences as a ground of faith in the trustworthiness of the Roman institution is a well-meaning, but nevertheless misguided tactic. Such evidences do have their place--as warrants, or supports, of the trust these Catholics already had in their Church (although they can still be challenged by Protestants). But if, as the Roman defenders tell us, the warrants for our faith must be infallible, these warrants can never serve as the foundations, since they, like the apologists who adduce them, are fallible.
If one still doubts the validity of my reasoning here, just ask why, if the historical skyscraper produced by Catholic apologists is really so incredible, really so "obvious", why does it not convince Protestants like James White, who is at least as well-informed about Church history as Patrick Madrid? And why can a James White or a William Webster produce similar skyscrapers that appear "obvious" to Protestants but not to Catholics? One begins to suspect that it is just not enough to say one's faith is true because it is "historical".
Conclusion
The claim that the identity and supreme authority of the Roman Catholic institutional Church can be established to be true solely by the use of non-inspired historical writings (which include those writings known as "the Bible") is false for two reasons.
First, it tacitly assumes the very thing that it is supposed to be proving. Both Catholics and Protestants take the Scriptures as reliable sources of information about God even if any given individuals in either camp cannot produce external supports for it. Protestants at least admit that this is what they are doing. Catholics, on the other hand (particularly the apologists), propose to treat Scripture "only as a historical document", which they then use to build up the authority of their Church. But in so doing, they ignore the fact that they are assuming that they "know" what books constitute "Scripture"--the very thing they deny that can be done apart from their Church!
Second, the claim that the identity and supreme authority of the Roman Catholic institutional Church can be established to be true solely by the use of non-inspired historical writings neglects to factor into its equation the fact that historical arguments are by their nature fallible, since they are constructed by fallible people who can never know all the facts and their inter-relationships with perfect clarity.
Thus, the apologetic tactic used by many Roman Catholic apologists today actually undermines the very "certainty of faith" it is supposed to safeguard. The Catholic tells the Protestant that he cannot know that Scripture is trustworthy since he doesn't have an infallible Church to vouchsafe the canon to him--that he has only a "fallible collection of infallible books". But the Protestant need not be nervous about admitting the truth of the last phrase, for he is still in a better epistemological position! He can simply reverse the argument and point out that the Catholic cannot know that Rome is the true Church, since all he has is "a fallible collection of (possibly false) historical trivia".
Hence, like the fundamentalists they so vehemently oppose, the argument of today's Catholic apologists rests in what one of their number, Patrick Madrid, termed "an absolute epistemological vaccuum". The irony is too delicious to ignore.
Here we go again. It’s getting to be a daily thing here. Find something to batter the Catholic Church with.
Are you folks here not aware that your ancestors were Catholics before they became Protestants - especially in Merry Old England?
You're sounding like a broken record dude. Read this again will you. You seem to have missed it.
As for Philemon. It was written by Paul who was an apostle.
Now, answer this question. Do you believe having daughters is a disgrace like it says in your Bible? Do you believe that burning fish hearts chases away demons as it says in your Bible? Have you healed any cataracts with fish entrails smeared on their eyes like it says in your Bible?
The Church of God, The pillar and foundation of Truth.
Douay Rheims: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women”.
Latin Vulgate “Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus.”.
See the phrase “Ave gratia plena” = Full of Grace.
Your latin translation is almost correct, not bad for a Protestant “have gratia plena” .
This has been debunked so many times on website.
Only two major translations render Luke 1:28 this way.
Douay Rheims and Aramaic Bible in English
From Pulpit Commentaries
Verse 28. - Hail, thou that art highly favored. The plena gratia of the Vulgate, said and sung so often in the virgin's famous hymn, is an inaccurate rendering. Rather, "gratia cumulata," as it has been well rendered. "Having been much graced (by God)" is the literal translation of the Greek word. Blessed art thou among women. These words must be struck out; they do not exist in the older authorities.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
28. highly favoured] marg. “graciously accepted” or “much graced.” Literally, having been graced (by God). Ephesians 1:6, “accepted.” Not as in the Vulgate “Gratiâ plena” but “gratiâ cumulata.” “Not a mother of grace, but a daughter.” Bengel.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Luke 1:28. χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη: ave plena gratiâ, Vulg[4], on which Farrar (C. G. T.) comments: “not gratiâ plena, but gratiâ cumulata”; much graced or favoured by God.—χαριτόω is Hellenistic, and is found, besides here, only in Ephesians 1:6 in N. T.—ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ, the Lord (Jehovah) is or be with thee, ἐστί or ἔστω understood; the two renderings come practically to the same thing.
So, no. No changing of the words by Christianity. Maybe by the rcc, but not Christianity.
Painfully so...And before they were Catholics they were bible believing Christians who were forced to convert to your pagan religion at the threat of burning at the stake or losing their head, or arms, or kids...
The mistake is that Rome thinks IT is "the church of God"..it is a church of a god..but not the God of the NT scriptures
Note that a foundation and pillars are intended to hold up something ...in this case THE TRUTH ... Jesus said the word of God was the truth and Rome tramples on that daily
Praise the Lord for His mercy and grace ..we have been brought out of that desert
χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ
Greetings favored with grace the Lord with you
No "full of grace" in there.
As for Philemon. It was written by Paul who was an apostle.
2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Seems simple enough to me...
I just posted the translated words directly from the Greek in the order they are in the Greek. THAT was scripture. Now you can listen to the lies of the Catholic Church if you want but I just showed you scripture. Choose this day who you will serve.
They may have been listening to this.
Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;
You should listen to that also.
My ancestors were smart and dumped that group. When they came to this country in the 1600’s, they became Baptists. Very smart of them. As far as I can determine in my genealogy research, they are still Baptists with a few Methodists, etc tossed in.
If her tank was FULL it was because God did it..not because she deserved it .
Like any good Protestant, the Bible can be re-worded to anything you like. You are your own god.
Try the original english version.
Douay Rheims: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Luke 1:28
Do you know the meaning of the word ‘title’?
Obviously you cut and paste. Even google translate gets it right.
Try again
You want to have it both ways but you cannot. If the sacrifice of Christ is on-going due to there being no time with God, as everything is one giant NOW, then it is irrelevant when Christ instituted the "sacrifice of the Eucharist," as if it this sacrifice does not have a terminus according to timelessness then it never had a beginning.
But if you condescend to operating with time as regards the time of an event of then you must submit the accomplishment of that event, that the atonement was finished by the death of Christ (Jn.19:30)
This recourse to switching to timelessness mode is compelled by the error of holding that last supper was instituting a perpetual sacrifice, but which it manifestly was not.
"This is my body" no more refers to bread literally being the Lord's actual or transubstantiated body than "This cup is the new testament in my blood" means the cup is literally blood, or David plainly declaring water was the blood of men and pouring it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord meant it literally was blood. Or that the Canaanites were bread for Israel.*
And rather than the Lord's Supper being "the source and summit of the Christian life," in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished," around which all else revolves, and engaging in this sacrificial offering being the primary function of NT pastors titled "hiereus"="priests," and being the essential to obtain spiritual and eternal life, in the life of the church the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle.
And in which, as hitherto described, the church as the body of Christ is the focus, which shows/declares the Lord's death for that body by showing care for each in taking part in that communal meal, the "feast of charity."
And nowhere is it set forth as the essential means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, which is by believing the word of God, which words Jn. 6 tells us are spirit and life. Nor are NT pastors ever titled "hiereus" ("priests") except as part of the general priesthood of all believers. (1Pt. 2:9) Nor are they ever even shown distributing food, much less turning bread and wine into the Lord's body and blood, or charged with doing so as their primary or distinctive function.
Instead their primary or distinctive function is that of pray and preaching the word, which is what is said to "nourish" souls. (Acts 6:3,4; 1Tim 4:6)
Ah yes.....the arrogance of catholicism shows itself again.
Try the original english version.
Better, try any Greek version. You will get "favored with grace"
If you’re going to make up your own arguments and then prove them wrong, there is really no point in a discussion.
Are you ignorant or insolent? Was not the argument made by your comrade that SS was wrong since Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything? Yes or no. And since it is yes, then how am i making up my own argument.
Scripture tells us not to be Bible-only: ..John 21:25.
I have already dealt with this, but it seems you choose to remain ignorant, and do not even understand what you imagine your are refuting with your parroted polemic. The fact is that SS does not hold that all that can be known is in Scripture, nor does Rome even claim to provide that, but both sides hold that all that is necessary is provided by their respective sources. Which for Scripture is formally and materially, and includes by what can be deduced based upon principles as well as precepts. Again, read where i deal with this at length.
Statues are reminders, same as photographs. You run-on sentence says statues have “Divine powers and glory” Rubbish.
Rather, "praise and adulation of the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory," refers to what is being attributed to the entity it represented, along with praise and adulation.
“But which ignores the manifest separation btwn realms “ Well, thanks for the laughs. Between realms? Wow. What realm are you on?
And what manner of persons cannot comprehend that Heaven and earth represent two different realms? It is evident that the Roman mind meld has left your with a form of cognitive dissonance which make you unfit to engage in meaning-full theological debate, and thus must resort to attempts at ignorant sarcasm.
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.