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up front that it is not going to treat the Scriptures as if they are divinely inspired, but merely as legitimate historical documents.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.
Bingo. Hysteria is right.
Ok.
κεχαριτωμένη
Strong's - I favor, bestow freely on.
Thayer's - to pursue with grace, compass with favor; to honor with blessings
NASEC - to make graceful, endow with grace
Ancient Greek word study - show grace to
Word break down.
κεχαριτωμένη
κε - you
χαριτωμ - favoured grace
ένη - one
Now, here are the letters that spell full
πλήρης
Can you find any of those letter in κεχαριτωμένη?
Full ain't in there.
Some friendly advice. Don't take your google translate to a foreign country.
I'm not quite sure how you get your statement out of John 21:25
And there are many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.
There is nothing in the verse even remotely suggesting or hinting at what you claim it does. Nothing.
However, in 20:30-31 John does record why he wrote the things he did.
Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Later in 1 John 5:13 he again tells us why he wrote specific things down.
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
You are correct sir. The JWs, Mormons, INC, The Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the Name Above All Names, and other cults, all claim, with minor variations, that they are the only true church, they are the ones with the answers, and we must pay attention to only them. Now, with the radically different doctrines they have, they may very well all be wrong, but there is no way on God's green earth, that they could all be right.
Preach it bro.
You know, I don’t really care much what Gabriel said to Mary, or who is the pillar, or other things. I just want to know that if someone died RIGHT NOW, and found himself standing before God, and He asks him why should I let you inyo Heaven. I just want to know how a man will answer that question. It is not that other issues are not important, but how one answers that ONE question, is infinitely more important.
That’s exactly right Mark. “I trust in the full price paid by the shed blood of Christ and have no defence of my own” is the only answer. Any appeal to personal deeds or obediences will not be heard.
Yah, and full of grace is not an example of it...
THIS!!!
I know you are new here, but is this a serious question on your part?
I don't read anywhere in Scripture where God gave Mary a choice in the matter. He had to already know she was who He had in mind from before the universe began. All creation did not sit in stunned silence, holding their collective breaths waiting for Mary to give her okay. And had Mary refused, we would never have heard of her and we'd be blessing Hannah or Sarah or Rachael or...
Besides, how does this idea of yours work with the Roman Catholic dogma of Mary's immaculate conception/sinlessness from her own birth if it could have been a wasted effort on God's part had she said no? Would she have become a retroactive sinner?
I hope as you become more familiar with the Religion Forum on Free Republic - and WELCOME! - you will learn that most all of the non-Catholic Christian Freepers that participate are WAY past such sophomoric questions.
They can't! But that's true of all religions that deny the sufficiency of God's word. Only then can they contradict, interject, change, add to and take away from Scripture whatever they KNOW disproves their faith. They have to make Scripture be in submission to their church instead of how God intended it to be.
Like all this other stuff that Catholicism teaches that cannot be found in Scripture either?
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
holy water
monstrance
sacred tradition
apostolic succession
Benefactress
Mediatrix
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
beatific vision
Your premise “If the sacrifice of Christ is on-going” is incorrect. Jesus only dies one time. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass transcends time. We are joined to that moment in time of His passion at Mass. However, our time on Earth marches forward.
You seem to have a lot of difficulty with this concept.
Here you say Jesus does not mean what He says:
“”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”
That’s too bad for you.
The root of kecharitomene is charitoo, which is commonly translated “grace,”
The suffix -mene indicates a passive participle, meaning Mary (the subject) is being acted upon. This is important because it shows Mary did not bring herself into this graced state, but rather it was the action of God — it describes Mary as “she who has been graced [by God].”
The prefix ke- indicates the perfect tense — meaning the action (Mary’s being graced) has been completed in the past with its results continuing in full effect
Some friendly advice, learn Greek
boat: I know you are new here, but is this a serious question on your part?
boat: I don't read anywhere in Scripture where God gave Mary a choice in the matter. He had to already know she was who He had in mind from before the universe began. All creation did not sit in stunned silence, holding their collective breaths waiting for Mary to give her okay. And had Mary refused, we would never have heard of her and we'd be blessing Hannah or Sarah or Rachael or...
ealgeone:
There is actually a belief that at this point in time there was an expectation of the coming Messiah. We see some evidence of this when Andrew sought after Peter to tell him the Messiah had been found (JN 1:41) and then when the two of them approached Nathanael (JN 1:45)
Also consider who Mary was related to. Zacharias and Elizabeth. What was Zacharias' job? Priest. Don't you think they've had some conversation about the coming Messiah?
We also know that both Joseph and Mary were God-fearing people. Matt 1:19 describes Joseph as a righteous man. Mary had been educated/was very familiar with the OT as she quoted it as noted in Luke 1:47-55.
Any surprise she had was most likely associated with her being chosen to be the one to give birth to Jesus. Her only question was how would this come about since she was a virgin at the time. Once Gabriel explained that she was good to go.
Her reply begins with Behold (this is in the imperative, a mood of command in Greek. The imperative can be of several types. In this sentence it is a request or entreaty. Normally used when an inferior is addressing a superior. It is almost always in the aorist tense; which this is. Greek Grammer, Beyond the Basics, Wallace, pp487-488) Mary is making an entreaty to Gabriel, who is representing God, to make this happen.
There is no way she would have said no.
If we don't need it, why did He institute it???? Kind of like the Eucharist....did He just waste time giving us that magnificent gift???
You're absolutely right....none of those things are covered under the false teaching of sola scriptura....but they are all factual.
I said even google gets it right. Too bad you don’t.
The root of kecharitomene is charitoo, which is commonly translated “grace,”
The suffix -mene indicates a passive participle, meaning Mary (the subject) is being acted upon. This is important because it shows Mary did not bring herself into this graced state, but rather it was the action of God — it describes Mary as “she who has been graced [by God].”
The prefix ke- indicates the perfect tense — meaning the action (Mary’s being graced) has been completed in the past with its results continuing in full effect. The prefect tense carries with it a sense of fullness or completion. Mary has been graced (favored) by God and she stands in that grace (favor). St. Jerome’s interpretation is correct: Mary is full of grace.
“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
Is this a serious answer on your part?
Unless you deny Mary’s gift of free will, she always had the choice to say no.
That is why Mary gives permission: “And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.” Luke 1:38
Nope, if you listened real carefully you would have understood that the act of eating meat on Friday was a pretty neutral act....however, denying that the Church had the authority to bind a certain act as sinful was the sin. The Church has a lot of authority and over the years the use of that authority was necessary to establish and maintain an orderly progression of Christianity. If everyone was free to do everything their own way, chaos would have soon been the only rule that there was.
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.