ping
To the point. And on point.
Thanks RnMom!
Hoss
To the point. And on point.
Thanks RnMom!
Hoss
**As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. **
Not true.
**Rome likes to compare herself with the whole of Protestantism rather than with a single Confession that is internally consistent with itself, like the Westminster standards.**
At least we pull out RC catechisms and writings. They, even when challenged, refuse to cite anything from any “Protestant” writing.
Here are some other passages which compliment 2 Peter 1:20.
Luke 9:45 is interesting because it indicates that understanding the Scriptures is not an act of human will.
Also:
Luke 12:12
Luke 24:45
The bottom line is that anybody’s understanding of the Scriptures is completely up to the Holy Sprit imo.
Wow! Heads I win, tails you lose! Rhetorical tautology straight off the third grade playground.
Seriously, do you have to work hard to find pieces as dumb and shallow as this, or is it easy? I wouldn't know; I've never tried. The first sentence, in particular, is just plain garbage.
It would be nice if there were FR Protestants who actually wanted to discuss the things that divide and unite us in a sane and friendly manner, but it seems like most of them have internalized ::ROME IS THE ENEMY:: to such an extent that that is impossible.
On the off chance someone reasonable is reading this thread: "Scripture interprets Scripture" is a fine principle, but it still requires human beings to research, interpret, and understand the Scriptures. Anyone who has ever participated in a Bible study with a heavy-duty Bible scholar knows what I'm talking about. There are layers upon layers of meaning that require familiarity with the original languages, historical knowledge of the time period, etc.
Sorry, but you're retrojecting your Protestantism onto ancient Jews.
Israel was to set up courts in every city (with the largest being of course at Jerusalem) and the Torah obligated Jews to abide by their decisions. This authority exists today in the Battei Din (courts) and Torah decisors.
The Torah enjoins several commandments the details of which are not spelled out in the Written Torah. When the Torah says to "heave" certain things and "wave" others, what does that mean? It has to mean something, right? It was written by G-d; it can't merely use words arbitrarily. Clearly there was a ritual for "waving" and a ritual for "heaving." But we are never told what they are. Furthermore, we are told that in some rituals people were "waved." Surely Martin Luther and John Calvin didn't claim to know how to reproduce that ritual, did they?
Another good example is the laws of the Hebrew calendar. G-d didn't simply point to an Egyptian calendar hanging on the wall at the beginning of Exodus 12 and say "we'll call this the 'first month.'" The Egyptian calendar was a solar calendar. No, at the point in time described in the beginning of Exodus 12 G-d gave Moses a whole group of laws and regulation for correctly calculating the dates of the Jewish calendar. Those laws are found nowhere in the Written Torah or the rest of the Hebrew Bible, yet without them one could not observe a single Biblical feast. In fact, even those Protestants who practice a Judaeo-chrstian syncretism, while rejecting anything "not explicitly in the bible," nevertheless implicitly recognize the authority of the Oral Torah when they accept the current dates of the Jewish holidays hey celebrate.
And finally, the big two: 1)the Written Torah consists of nothing but a list of over 304,000 consonants. There are no vowels. There is no punctuation. The organization of these consonants into words with their proper verbal pronunciation come from the Oral Torah, without which the Written Torah would be indecipherable.
2)Before the invention of the printing press or even before the Torah had been translated into another language, it was transmitted from generation to generation by learned soferim (scribes) who wrote it by hand in accordance to the most minute of rules and regulations (none of which, again, are elucidated in the Written Torah). The rules include what skins may be used as writing parchment, which tendons may be used to stitch them together, and what juices may be used to compound the ink. And it dictates the sizes and shapes of the letters and the "crowns" attached to them. This is the source of every single Pentatueuch translation in history, and the correctness of every translation depends entirely and assumes fully that the method and oral laws which govern the writing of Torah Scrolls are 100% authentic and trustworthy. I know Protestants don't like to hear this kind of talk because the Catholic claim that "you wouldn't have the bible without us!" has turned them off, but there is absolutely no comparison with the Catholic claims. Without authentically G-d-given oral laws instructing how to copy out a kosher Torah Scroll there would be no Bibles in the world today . . . not one. And in case some of you may be unaware of it, this method of hand-writing Torah Scrolls has been followed continuously since Moses himself and it is these kosher Torah Scrolls that are ritually read in Jewish worship.
My ethno-cultural attachments to American Fundamentalist Protestantism sometimes distort my own beliefs and I'm sure many Protestants assume that I believe just as they do on everything. This is not true and, to tell the truth, some Catholic/Orthodox criticisms of Protestantism are valid. But their answer to Protestantism is so fallacious that it gives Oral Tradition a bad name.
Of course, what Protestants mean when they speak of "perspecuity of Scripture" is not any of these things but rather those matters pertaining to "salvation." This chrstian "salvation" is a will-o'-the-wisp about which all the various chrstians have never agreed and never will agree. It is the "new testament" that keeps all those who (at least in theory) fear the One True G-d divided and constantly at each others' throats. Just as the "Pharasaical legalism" which all chrstians so hypocritically denounce is exactly what G-d intended and what the world needs.
Maybe you'll believe it when 'Adam HaRi'shon is resurrected and tells you.
****As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture.****
First of all, this is absurd. If Protestants believe that they are right because the put Catholics into a “heads I win, tails you lose” position, they don’t have much to stand on, do they?
____________________________________________
****1. An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands and will gladly concede that historic Protestantism affirms that Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture. This is often referred to as the analogy of Scripture.****
How can Scripture be the interpreter of Scripture? Scripture is a group of writings—people are the ones who interpret.
____________________________________________
****2. Even for the Roman Catholic, Scripture interprets Scripture with respect to the magisterium’s basis for Christian doctrine. In turn the magisterium is to relay its interpretation of Scripture to the laity. Even Marian doctrines are alleged to be derivable from Scripture.****
The Church does not claim that its teachings are derived from Scripture: the Church existed before the New Testament; therefore, Church teachings cannot be derived from something which did not yet exist.
Moreover, the choice of which of the many extant writings were to be finalized as part of the canon of Scripture was made by the Church based on the adherence of the individual work with the teachings of the Church. Thus, the Scriptures are based on Catholic teaching.
____________________________________________
****3. Even when a Roman Catholic lay person offers an argument from Scripture, say to reconcile James with Paul, they too operate under the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. At the very least, won’t a Roman Catholic appeal to Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture to derive and offer proof of Rome’s doctrine for an infallible magisterium? Rarely does one find a Roman Catholic assert “the pope has said so and that settles it.”****
Catholics are practical enough not to assume a Catholic sensibility on the part of non-Catholics. It is understood that saying “the pope says so, so that is settled,” to someone who does not accept papal authority won’t do a lot to explain Catholicism to them.
However, among orthodox Catholics, there is a saying: Roma locuta; causa finita est, or Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. When Catholics are discussing a topic among themselves, the discussion is much different than when they are talking to non-Catholics. There are requests for quotes from definitive writings; there are discussion regarding the level of belief a Catholic must have in the document; etc. All this would be lost on those who are not Catholic.
____________________________________________
I could go on, but thought it might make the post too long.
.
Anything the “magisterium” comes up with is a private interpretation.
Interpretation is always private.
The scriptures are not to be interpreted, they are to be read. The Holy Spirit provides the interpretation to those that are Yehova’s elect.
The rest look to the “magisterium.”
.