Combox for:
Baptist Pastor Ken Temple Proves That Paul, Peter, & Timothy Are Blasphemers Who Claim That People Can Save Other People (Re: Catholic Mariology)
[29 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...roves-
that.html
I expanded the post from its original form at 6:40 PM EST 4-29-08.
Wow. I really stepped into that one! Touche Dave!
Of course, none of those verses are in the context of praying to Paul, John, Peter, etc. and each one means something different than the context of the praise language of prayers to Mary.
You did a good job of just finding things with the word "salvation" in them; and "grace" but not at all parallel with prayers and praise to a dead person as if they are like a deity. Prayer is only to God; and asking someone to pray for us is only asking them to pray to God; and we don't exalt them in praises -- praise and worship is only for God.
Anyway, you can really crank out lots of material fast; amazing.
1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
[Paul "saves" other people, thus clearly placing himself above God, and blaspheming, right, Ken?]
Obviously Paul is not claiming that he is the Savior and he is teaching that God saves people; he means that by evangelism, God would use him by all means of relating to different cultures, becoming all things to all kinds of people; that God would use him as an instrument that leads to salvation; but only Christ actually saves.
Whereas the prayers to Mary are treating her like a Deity and Savior. So the context is different and not parallel. Yours is a bad method of seeking to make parallels.
The larger context of I Timothy 4:16 obviously does not mean Timothy is the savior, (verse 10 says God is the Savior) or saves himself literally, but his perseverance confirms and proves that he is a true believer and by that kind of diligence and perseverance, he will be saved by God. There is no prayer or praise to him as in the Prayers to Mary; so this is also not a good parallel or analogy.
By faithfully doing the duties of the ministry, preaching and teaching and living holy (faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of Christ - Romans 10:17) others will be saved by God, when the results are Spirit empowered and result in salvation of souls and sanctification of the believers in perseverance and confirming their faith. We believe in human means and channels also that God uses to save and sanctify people.
9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance
10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
11 Command and teach these things. 12 Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 13Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
15 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
I Timothy 4:9-16
Again, no prayers or praise or worship to Paul or Timothy. Your point fails.
I'm not at all sure that you understand what my point is, Ken. But I'm too lazy to explain it, and the use of analogy and humor. Perhaps someone else will be kind enough to show how your replies are non sequiturs with regard to my actual argument. No offense (you don't need to go off into the stratosphere like our good friend Tim has done yet again). It is a strictly logical matter.
Just one question for you at this time (and one rather central to the post). You wrote:
God would use him as an instrument that leads to salvation; but only Christ actually saves.
Okay, now how is that different from saying that Mary can "bring" salvation: the very thing that you described as "exalting her above the Lord and only Savior, Jesus Christ" and "blasphemous"?
How is saying that so-and-so "brings" something essentially different from saying that so-and-so is an "instrument"? I could say, for example, that this computer monitor brings me the picture and data that enables me to reply in this very combox, or I could say that the monitor was the instrument to do that. What's the difference?
The result, of course, is precisely as I argued: it is a reductio ad absurdum, bringing you to the horns of a dilemma: either Paul is a blasphemer, like you say Catholics are, or you are wrong (as shown by almost exact analogy) and must give up your charge.
Which will it be? But you haven't weakened or defeated my argument in the least. It stands every bit as strong as it was.
Philippians 2:12b-13 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
This verse says, "work out your salvation", not "work for your salvation". Work it out, what God has put in you; make it manifest by obedience, because God is in you.
Monergism is only passive at the beginning point of regeneration. After that you make real choices because the heart has been set free. Monergism is not talking about sanctification. It is not passive once the heart and soul are regenerated. You still believe and choose and have to strive for holiness, etc. You make real choices. You believe; only because God first awakens the heart, makes the heart alive, (Ephesians 2:1-4), opens the heart (Acts 16:14) shines the light (2 Cor. 4:5)
[Paul again blasphemously teaches Pelagianism, or works-salvation.
Obviously, you don't believe that; and I don't and the above explains it.
Folks are taking the place of God by working out their own salvation???!!!! If someone says that God is mentioned in the second part, the Calvinist "monergist" still has to explain how a human being can participate at all in what only God can do (according go the monergist) ]
We are co-laborers with Christ. I Cor. 3:9 Monergism does not preclude our choices and will and actions and deeds and efforts in sanctification in manifesting the reality of salvation that God works in the heart, both to will and to work His pleasure. Again, monergism is only about the fact that God alone regenerates at the beginning because the soul is dead; like a dead battery. "you were dead in your trespasses and sins." Ephesians 2:1
Once God makes your heart alive, you must choose to obey and He give you the power and motivation to do that.
See Ezekiel 36:26 also, When God takes the stoney heart out and replaces it with a new soft pliable heart; then He causes them to walk in His statutues.
I get your point, you are saying that Mary is a channel, a means, similar to Paul and Timothy and Peter and John.
The problem is what you don't see. You don't see the difference between the prayers and praise and exaltation, "flowery language" (as you put about Liguori) (spelling ?) (don't hold me to that I am typing fast in the combox.) and that the "Mary, Day by Day" book is exalting her too much because it speaks directly to her and exalts her not just as "means" but as source. Prayers and praise in worship context should only be for God.
so your point is the one is that falls flat.
The only problem, Ken, is that the verse does not separate sanctification and justification, as Protestants arbitrarily do. It is saying, rather, that we have the salvation and we also have to "work it out."
If we didn't have the salvation in some sense (we would call it regeneration or initial justification), then we wouldn't be able to "work it out." OTOH, If we have it and we are working it out, then it is impossible to separate this "working" from salvation itself and put it into a little neat airtight compartment called "sanctification." The Bible has a word for sanctification that could easily have been used here if indeed that is what Paul actually meant.
If you're working out salvation, then obviously, the "working out" has to do directly with the salvation. According to your theology, the verse ought to say:
"Work out your sanctification, in which you are grateful to God for your salvation and justification." (RFB: Revised Fundamentalist Version)
But of course it does not. So in order to avoid the implications you have to play with the text and eisegete, and force it into an unbiblical Protestant soteriology. And this is only one of many many such passages.
so your point is the one is that falls flat.
Not at all. I've been through this a dozen times, and the Protestant never succeeds in proving that we "worship" Mary. You are far more than adequately informed to not keep making dumb statements like this.
You could start by kindly providing me with primary information about who even made these comments you object to, so I can look up the context, if possible. The book is not searchable on Google. One is possibly from St. Germanus.
When I did that (examine context) with St. Alphonsus, it was a slam dunk. My opponent (also our buddy John Q. Doe in another similar attempt) was obviously butchering context altogether or was never aware of it at all. He wound up looking exceedingly silly, which is, no doubt, a big reason why he fled for the hills in camouflage.
the "Mary, Day by Day" book is exalting her too much because it speaks directly to her and exalts her not just as "means" but as source.
That follows neither logically nor grammatically (let alone theologically). This is rather elementary. I could ask my 6 yo daughter, e.g., to "give me water." Now, if she does so, is she the source of the water?
She is in terms of my immediate circumstance, one could say. I'm painting the garage (as I did last weekend) and she brings me a cup, so she is the source in the sense that she is the cause for me now having a glass of water in my hand (and soon, my belly).
But is she the ultimate source? Of course she is not. The source goes back to the kitchen sink (the instrument in my house), and then water pipes (another instrument, or conduit), and then to the local water department (yet another instrument in the whole process), and then to one of the local lakes (possibly Lake Erie), which is replenished through the natural forces of emptying rivers, evaporation, condensation, and rain.
So acc. to your convoluted reasoning, if I say that Mary "brings me salvation" or I ask her to bring it to me, then I must necessarily mean that she is the source of that salvation, as if she were God. You seem constitutionally unable to comprehend any other scenario, even when it is right in front of your face.
But this doesn't follow! I showed how it does not, even biblically (with explicit examples that you have not overcome at all). Now I have shown it again by simple logic and another analogy.
For a Catholic to refer to Mary "bringing" salvation is obviously an instance of her interceding to bring it about, which we all do. Have you never prayed for a person's salvation, for heaven's sake? No pun intended . . . Why can't Mary do so? Because she is unconscious? What, do you believe in soul sleep like Luther and the SDA and JWs do?
She is alive and very much concerned about us on the earth. She can pray for us and her prayers have unimaginable power because of her special role as Mother of God.
There is nothing in the least unbiblical about any of this. Mary can help to bring the salvation to us that always, necessarily comes from God, brought about by the incarnation and the cross, just as we all do as soon as we pray for someone or share the gospel with them, or explain something in the Bible, or encourage them to go to Church or to pray or read the Bible.
You won't accept my instruction as to what Catholics believe, though. You insist on redefining our own beliefs and pretending that they are different from what they are. Why? What do you get out of that? Why do you insist on believing the worst of those who differ from you instead of the best?
That ain't biblical ethics. It is bearing false witness, as you have been doing constantly around here lately. I'm happy to allow you to do it because your arguments are so easily defeated by the Catholics here. It's between you and God if you truly think you are telling the truth rather than bearing false witness, after having been corrected innumerable times on this forum, even on factual matters.
I understand that we differ in theology, but I'm talking about the factual determination of what Catholics teach in the first place. You haven't even gotten that right when it comes to just about anything having to do with the Blessed Virgin: the Mother of God.
That ain't biblical ethics. It is bearing false witness, as you have been doing constantly around here lately.
No. It is not deliberate lying or bearing false witness -- as you said, it is disagreement in theology.
Praying to Mary is much more than only "asking her to pray for you". There is too much praise and exaltation in it. And prayers and worship are only for God.
I understand that you are frustrated in that you think I am trying to define things for you; and you keep repeating "no, we don't believe that", "here is what we believe", etc. That's fair enough.
We also believe we were saved in the past (if one had genuine faith in Christ) and we are being saved and we will be saved.
We also believe in means and channels, etc.
And we also believe that sanctification is inherently connected to justification.
So, we both have doctrines and ways of looking at things; but each one seems like something else to the other person.
The source point, I was making about salvation and grace, etc. is strong from the Protestant viewpoint because we only pray to God for strength and peace and guidance and salvation; He is the ultimate source.
Mary, as the mother of the Messiah was a channel, a means, yes; this we agree. That is what Irenaeus' famous statement meant; a channel and means, an instrument. But RC practice and dogmas make it seem like she is a source and almost like a goddess.
Sorry for any offense. To accuse me of bearing false witness is not right; and makes me feel like I should not do this anymore. I wasted my time.
"But RC practice and dogmas make it seem like she is a source and almost like a goddess."
brief reading of the Catechism is enough to prove that this statement is really bearing false witness.
Ken,
I left this question for you and others on the open-forum page of this site. Since you are here addressing this issue now I will ask it here.
"I wish to join this fine discussion from a different angle. With the honest disagreements that we see here over these essential issues as they relate to the Gospel; what method is there in Protestantism to resolve disputes such as this? How did the Church we see operating in Scripture resolve disputes over essential christian doctrine?"
I copied by answer in the Open Forum here:
Good question Pat --
Do you mean between Protestants and RCs or within Protestant denominations?
There is no way to solve the issue with RCC because they claim to be infallible; therefore, there is nothing we can ever say that would ever have any affect on the larger official doctrines, dogmas, and stances. (unless God changes hearts and minds) When the RCC apologists have submitted to that ultimate authority, there is really nothing Protestants can do about that that can change their minds without them having to give up the whole thing.
There are ecclesiastical courts/trials that some Protestants still do follow (conservative Presbyterians, to name some, that seem to have those kinds of trials) to investigate and solve problems within its own denomination; but when the organization itself has gone heretical (the Anglican church has brought ecclesiastical judgment against J. I. Packer, but it is he who is right, and they are wrong.
-- but to be honest, it seems that historically, this problem, when taken to its ultimate bottom line, goes to the heart of the church/state separation issues and results of the Reformation and state churches in Europe; and goes all the way back to the era of the Inquisition and the power of the state being used by the church; Protestant witch trials came from the same ideas.
The USA and European tradition separated the sins of "religion" (idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, etc.) and retained only crimes that relate to the 6th, 8th, and 9th commands. (Murder, stealing, bearing false witness in court) When did adultery stop being a crime? In Islam, they have no separation between the words "sin", "guilt" and "crime".
I don't have all the answers on this problem. It encompasses things "too high for me". Psalm 131
Ken Temple | 04.30.08 - 8:47 am | #
"But RC practice and dogmas make it seem like she is a source and almost like a goddess."
brief reading of the Catechism is enough to prove that this statement is really bearing false witness.
peter
no, the words "seem" and "almost like" are the keys. I know you officially don't worship Mary as God -- but I don't think John knowingly committed full idolatry either in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9
Did John think the angel was God or a manifestation of God, or Jesus ?
You and Dave are almost pushing your point to this: "If you disagree with me or us; you are bearing false witness." I do think that is unfair debating tactics.
What is the point of debate and discussion and having a blog with comboxes; if you are going to accuse the other side of this?
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/
inde...=Statue+of+Mary
This is the classic example of what "seems" to be worship and bowing down before a graven image and praying to someone who is not God.
It is not bearing false witness to
a. read the catechism and understand that intellectually and officially you deny you are worshiping Mary and that she is not part of the Trinity.
b. But in practice, to do things that are against Exodus 20:1-4 and Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 -- this is why the Protestant evangelical objects and says, "there is something wrong here".
James White gives a compelling discussion of the dulia/latria issue.
There were many other pictures on the web of catholics and popes bowing down in front of statues etc. but the arguments went too far into Jack Chick type of methods.
But James White's way of addressing the issue does not do that.
This shows that praying to Mary is much more than just "asking her to pray for you" and all of these very confusing and appearances of idolatry and worship of graven images should be abandoned.
Ken,
Thanks for responding. You are kind. My question was intended for you as a Protestant with other Protestants in relation to the kind of Church we see in Scripture. IOW, How does the protestant worldview address disputes over essential christian doctrine within the Body of Christ- the Church? Also, how did the Church we see in Scripture resolve disputes over essential christian doctrine?
But in practice, to do things that are against Exodus 20:1-4 and Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 -- this is why the Protestant evangelical objects and says, "there is something wrong here".
There is that feeling. I felt that way quite often. Most of the time when I got to know where the people involved were at spiritually I realized that I was judging them. I was assuming they were relating to Mary the same way I was relating to God because the externals were similar. It just was not so.
James White gives a compelling discussion of the dulia/latria issue.
It is compelling if you are a Jehovah's Witness. He uses the same arguments they use to declare bithday parties and national anthems to be sinful.
There were many other pictures on the web of catholics and popes bowing down in front of statues etc. but the arguments went too far into Jack Chick type of methods.
What you are saying is they are not arguments at all but just judgmental comments. Protestants spew more hatred when discussing Mary than any other issue. There is a huge spiritual battle going on around her. Satan seems to work extra hard to keep people from developing a devotion to her.
But James White's way of addressing the issue does not do that.
This particular piece is OK. He does do that often.
This shows that praying to Mary is much more than just "asking her to pray for you" and all of these very confusing and appearances of idolatry and worship of graven images should be abandoned.
It does go beyond "asking her to pray for you." We do want to honor her as our spiritual mother. I don't see that as confusing or problematic. Why should the family of God not have a mother?
As far as "appearances of idolatry and worship of graven images" goes. It is the reality that is what we need to worry about. Appearances depend on the observer. Sure some observers see that. Why is that our problem? If I walk into a protestant church and assume people are worshipping a bunch of musicans does that make them wrong? Only if my assumption is right. In some churches that might be the case but, I hope, in the majority of the churches that is not the case.
"But RC practice and dogmas make it seem like she is a source and almost like a goddess."
brief reading of the Catechism is enough to prove that this statement is really bearing false witness.
peter | 04.30.08 - 5:40 am | #
Looks like there are two Peters posting. Hey, Peter of the above post, should we start putting the first initial of our last name on our signature in order to differentiate between our posts?
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Ken,
Thanks for responding. You are kind.
Thanks.
My question was intended for you as a Protestant with other Protestants in relation to the kind of Church we see in Scripture.
that is why there are different kinds of Protestant churches over certain issues, like church government, baptism, the Lord's supper, spiritual gifts, worship style, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, eschatology. Some are essentials and some are secondary. Some are essential to salvation and some are not as important to be dogmatic on.
IOW, How does the protestant worldview address disputes over essential christian doctrine within the Body of Christ- the Church?
They just don't do much of this anymore. Basically, when the Reformation happened; it causes splits and then more splits; as Dave A. has written about.
The closest thing is "Together for the Gospel"
movement, a coalition of Reformed churches who agree with each other on Salvation/Justification issues, but disagree over baptism, spiritual gifts, Israel vs. church, etc.
Also, how did the Church we see in Scripture resolve disputes over essential christian doctrine?
Pat Malone
"The main example is over the issue of legalism/Judaizers in Acts 15. Galatians was clear on that. We can trust that as infallible because it is in the Scritpures; but we have no way to trust any of the post-Biblical councils as "infallible".
The first 4, Nicea(325), Constantinople(381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451) were good in doctrine, but those since then are un-biblical.
Hi Ken,
Sorry for any offense. To accuse me of bearing false witness is not right; and makes me feel like I should not do this anymore. I wasted my time.
You and Dave are almost pushing your point to this: "If you disagree with me or us; you are bearing false witness." I do think that is unfair debating tactics.
What is the point of debate and discussion and having a blog with comboxes; if you are going to accuse the other side of this?
The following is not an instance of bearing false witness?:
"Mary brings salvation!" What more evidence do we need of exalting her above the Lord and only Savior, Jesus Christ?
You actually believe that we place Mary above God, even after I showed you how the language of Paul in the NT is an exact parallel to this? You yourself say you don't believe we make Mary some sort of goddess, in one place, yet you make a dumb remark like this. Yes, absolutely you should be called on it. The sin is yours, not ours. The sin is exactly bearing false witness. You know better. You can object to our Mariology without misrepresenting what it is.
And I believe you are conscientious and humble enough to recognize the false witness, rather than shift blame to us, as if we are being overly-demanding or over-sensitive.
And here is another highly uncharitable statement, including the charge of blasphemy:
All of these facts and this blasphemous statement and prayer alone should keep any thinking Evangelical from being duped into converting to Rome by the tricks of always raising doubt and skepticism
Tricks? Dupes? "Thinking" evangelicals? What do you think I'm trying to do here: connive and trick people into damnation? You wouldn't accept this for a second if I described your ministry in such terms (as I never would and never have).
You're better than this, Ken. You're a good man. I have always appreciated your input here, maddening as I find it many times. This is an instance where you went too far in language and in describing fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and what they supposedly believe.
Dave,
I understand your offense over my objection to the prayers to Mary and the "Mary brings salvation" quote from the Mary Day by Day book.
Again, it says, "O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation."
I am not trying to be "mean" or "bear false witness", remember this is a prayer, it is much more than Paul being an instrument to bring someone to salvation by his preaching the gospel and suffering.
Prayer is considered praise (and it is worship) here in the Mary Day by Day book, it is not just asking for her to "pray for me". The context is praising her and calling her name great. That is something we should only do to God.
"Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised" Psalm 96, etc.
"there is no other name by which we must be saved" Acts 4:12; see also John 3:18
The connection of praying to Mary and praising her and calling her name great is making her the source of salvation rather than a channel or means of salvation, it seems. (Even with the other official denials.)
2. Tricks and Dupes -- I don't mean you are deliberately trying to be deceptive or evil with bad motives, etc.
What I mean is that they skepticism over "How do you know what is the true church?" and "how do you know for sure with infallible certainty that your interpretation is right? or how do you know that you got the NT canon right or your view of church history right, since the final canon was not agreed upon by the universal church until 367 AD (at the earliest, Athanasius) or 380-400 (whenever r the Councils of Hippo and Carthage were.)
The skepticism puts sensitive souls under pressure to settle for an organizational unity over truth issues.
Sorry for my language of exaggeration and not being clear on that one. I apologize.
even after I showed you how the language of Paul in the NT is an exact parallel to this?
You did not show it an exact parallel at all. They are only parallel in one aspect, that God uses means and instruments and channels to save people and give grace to people; yes.
But the Mary context is prayer; prayer is worship; therefore the Mary stuff is wrong.
The Paul, Peter, John, Tim. contexts are preaching, evangelism, ministry -- they are channels and we agree with all that.
Case closed.
You can object to our Mariology without misrepresenting what it is.
OK, it is un-biblical, wrong, and seems to give appearance to be violation of "don't bow down to statues" and Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9.
But, officially, Roman Catholicism does not worship Mary and she is not part of the Trinity.
Those that seek to do Marian piety properly separate in their hearts and minds praise to her as hyper-dulia; but praise to God as latria (worship; adoration).
They ask her to pray for them and their flowery language and praise is admiration, but not adoration, and they are not actually praying to the statue; they are using the statue or picture or icon as a help to focus their mind and heart on the spiritual image of her (and Jesus and other saints when praying to them and using their pictures and icons, etc.); the character of them as godly models when on earth; and glorified saints in heaven who can pray for them and help them in the battles of faith and sanctification in this life.
They emphasize her a lot; with large statues of her holding the baby Jesus, etc. The call her a "co-mediator" (co-mediatrix and also co-redemptrix) when there is only one mediator -- Jesus Christ -- 1 Tim. 2:5
Is that better? I tried to be more careful with "seems" and "emphasizes" and "appearance".
Hi Ken, I think what the problem for you is the fact that you have the perception that when we use the language of co-mediatrix or co-redemptrix, Catholics believe that Mary is actually co-equal with Jesus. Sorry we do not believe this. She is not co-equal with Christ. She is but a creature, and our exaltation and adulation for her is the same kind (maybe more in degree) that we would hold for a parent or a beloved spouse or friend and not of the sort reserved for God alone.
As a minister of God, when you bring someone to Christianity are you are not a helper in bringing about someone's redemption? Do you not believe that God uses you as an instrument to distribute His grace to your flock through your preaching and through your pastoring and to us by participating here? To that extent, you are certainly a co-redemptor in my view. Yet, noone would suggest that you are equal to Christ. So why accuse us of doing so with Mary?
When you pray for a member of your church or for anyone. are you not mediating with God on their behalf? To that extent, you certainly are a co-mediator as I understand the term and the role Paul, John, Timothy and Mary play as mediators. Yet, noone is suggesting that you are equal with Christ in mediating for us with the Father. Why accuse us or believe of us that we do so with Mary?
When Catholics use such terms we are not exclaiming that Mary is equal in anyway with Jesus, what we are truly saying is that as a creature, Mary is better at doing those things than any other creature can do those things. Just as you do, Mary helps brings people to Christ and is able to intercede with Him, we only think that she can do it better than you or others can do.
I would really urge you to read "Mary: The Virgin Mary in the Life and Writings of John Henry Newman" by Philip Boyce, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (2004). This book explains in his own words how JH Newman viewed Mary both as a Protestant and as a Catholic and how he reconciled the two. I believe that this may help you understand our perspective a little better.
P.S. I didn't think very much of Professor White's latria/dulia analysis. The fact of the matter is that the Greek "timao" is used both in the OT and NT to "honor" both God and creatures. The Church was right to distinguish in the Latin the difference between the honor shown to God and the honor shown to creatures, including Mary.
Hi Ken,
I appreciate and accept the apology. Thank you. I understand that we're all passionate about our beliefs, and we can all say things we might rephrase upon reflection. I'm no stranger to that, myself! No problem there.
I'll respond to your other comments later. Right now I have to do something else. Thanks again for the more conciliatory sentiments and explanations.
Warm greetings, Ken,
The connection of praying to Mary and praising her and calling her name great is making her the source of salvation
“Calling her name great is making her a source of salvation…??
My dear Ken, thou dost “protests too much, methinks!”
The Lord had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I WILL MAKE YOUR NAME GREAT, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Genesis 12:1-3
http://www.google.com/search?hl=...%22&
btnG=Search
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
And so Abraham’s name has been made great! Let us rejoice therefore and be exceedingly thankful.
And thus your concerns in this regard are simply unfounded.
"God is glorified in his saints."
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. St. John 17:10
When he shall come to be glorified in his saintsand to be made wonderful in all them who have believed; because our testimony was believed upon you in that day.2 Thess. 2:10.
And now, may I tell you a brief story?
Many years ago, a young man, steeped in sin and in considerable emotional pain, and perceiving himself near the edge of the precipice, cried out in his most sorrowful desperation one night, “Lord, save me!” “Lord, save me!”
This young man, his mind a swirling mass of confusion, his spirit an abyss of distress, received an answer that night he would never forget. Out of his great maelstrom of confusion, he perceived, most distinctly, a voice – as calm and as gentle (but nevertheless most firm) as any he had had ever known – from which but two simple words were uttered:
“Behave yourself!”
Immediately, he understood the significance of those words - “Behave yourself” (1 Tim. 3:15) – they were the Lord’s answer, even to his un-asked question. They were the Lords’ solution to his most unhappy condition.
And what was just as surprising and unexpected (or perhaps not!) was that he perceived this voice to have been that of - a woman!
Well, in any event, that was a good twenty-five years ago. And how little I have to show for the Good God’s kindness!
Nevertheless, He calls! He beckons! He pursues! For such it seems, are the ways of the Divine Lover, who goes in search, even of the lost sheep!
So Ken, let us love the Good God, and let us not hesitate to love and honor his saints, and especially, let us not hesitate to love and rejoice in the Most Blessed Mother, that “paradise of virginity”. Let us rejoice in the Lord having indeed made her name great. For
“He that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.” Luke 1:49
And may we never be found to be among those who “scorn to call her blessed.”
http://books.google.com/books?hl...er%20blessed%
22
Let us never fail to show to “our tainted nature's solitary boast" the honor which the Lord has bestowed upon her.
Peace.
By the way, dear Reverend Ken, regarding that most gentle voice; it was not simply – and I say this with the most profound solemnly – it was not simply a woman’s voice.
It was, most assuredly, a Mother’s voice!
Ken,
Thanks again for responding. I realize that you are being asked about different things in this thread by different people. Thanks for taking the time to respond. In your response to my questions you said:
"The main example is over the issue of legalism/Judaizers in Acts 15. Galatians was clear on that. We can trust that as infallible because it is in the Scritpures; but we have no way to trust any of the post-Biblical councils as "infallible".
I find this response interesting to say the least. It seems to say that Christ established a Church that could speak infallibly in Council (Acts 15) and since this is attested to in Scripture it can be trusted as infallible. However, this model/method no longer exists. First off, the Council in Acts 15 is by definition an extra-biblical authority which is attested to in Scripture. Acts 15 is the written account of what actually occured on the part of living breathing human beings in the visible world- in time and space. These people were the Apostles (and Elders) chosen by Christ to speak on His behalf. They did so infallibly. This is the only type of ecclesiology we see in Scripture. It is divinely constituted. But, Protestantism says that this type of Church, ie, with binding unified spiritual authority ended with the death of the last Apostle. Scripture itself, which is the christians sole infallible rule of faith according to Protestants, nowhere indicates that this exact kind of Church will ever end. How do you explain that? IOW, how do you continue to believe and have faith in something that is not in Scripture?
Pat,
Galatians also teaches clearly what Acts 15 teaches. Peter and James in Acts 15 quote from the OT also.
The RCC with Nicea II (5th council) to - Trent - Vatican I - Vatican 2 has violated and left Scripture. They did not follow the model of Acts 15 nor of Galatians -- they added things to faith as justifying just as the Judaizers were adding conditions such as circumcision, feast days, Sabbath day, new moons, eating certain foods, etc.
The Scriptures do not say that the Acts 15 council was an infallible model for all time in the future.
it is a good thing for churches to get together and hash things out; but the side that is right is the one that interprets the Scritpure properly.
When the councils started adding things like Perpetual virginity of Mary ( clearly wrong - Matthew 1:18-25; "brothers of the Lord" - Matthew 12-13, etc.) and doctrines of Mary and her sinlessness, IC, and BAssumption and Transub. and indulgences and statues and praying to Mary; those council details were wrong and they prove that they are not infallible.
But the first 4 councils were good on the Diety of Christ and the Trinity because they expressed the doctrine in a systematic way that was all there in Scripture; just using additional and helpful words.
It is in Scripture, if we keep holding to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and "do not go beyond what is written" ( I Cor. 4:6). Churches are left here to struggle. But when one side refuses to even listen to Scripture, and claims they are infallible; then the battle was over; as Calvin said.
The Lord had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people . . . I WILL MAKE YOUR NAME GREAT,
Again, that is not a prayer from a human to another human in heaven as the source of salvation and object of prayer and worship; as it is in the Mary, Day by Day book.
Case closed.
Ken,
You said:
"it is a good thing for churches to get together and hash things out; but the side that is right is the one that interprets the Scritpure properly."
So, when a Confessional Lutheran gets together with a Baptist to 'hash things out' and the Lutheran not only defends (Biblically, mind you) Infant Baptismal Regenration but also states (as they do) that this is an essential christian doctrine; then you state your case and defend it Biblically and insist that this is not essential; which one has 'properly' interpreted scripture?
Another way of saying what you believe about teaching Christian Truth/the Gospel is that both Confessional Lutheran's and Baptist's have properly interpreted scripture and thus are 'right, even though they have opposing and irreconsilable views on the same exact issue- Baptism. Ken, this is not reassureing to me as a sheep in Christ's fold. Remember, I am not a pastor or theologian I am a sheep looking to be led and fed as Christ promised in John 21. When Christ said 'Feed My sheep' He was talking to and about people like me. Thus I can clearly see that there are those in this world that I can trust to teach the Truth of the Gospel without error.
Also, your assertions about the RCC and the Council's throughout History is in a way beside the point to what I asked you. I asked, in effect, How does Protestantism go about 'Getting it right?" You mostly stated in response how the RCC 'got it wrong.' I don't at all see how the RCC being wrong (in your opinion) leads to any Protestant group being right. There is no connection. In fact, I would conclude that if the RCC could be as "wrong" as you believe then all the more reason to conclude that any Protestant church could be in error and I should rely on myself which in turn I could be in error which in turn ends in skepticism- refer to above example between Confessional Lutheran's and Baptist's over the doctrine of Baptism.
it is a good thing for churches to get together and hash things out; but the side that is right is the one that interprets the Scritpure properly.
Ken, do you really want to open up that can of worms for yourself? In his aboev post, Pat has touched on the difficulties that this attitude presents.
Thus sayeth, Ken:
But the first 4 councils were good on the Diety of Christ and the Trinity because they expressed the doctrine in a systematic way that was all there in Scripture; just using additional and helpful words.
Thus sayeth Ken:
When the councils started adding things like Perpetual virginity of Mary ( clearly wrong - Matthew 1:18-25; "brothers of the Lord" - Matthew 12-13, etc.) and doctrines of Mary and her sinlessness, IC, and BAssumption and Transub. and indulgences and statues and praying to Mary; those council details were wrong and they prove that they are not infallible.
You know, Ken, when you type stuff like this I just shake my head in amazement. I realize that the tone of this post might borderline on the uncharitable in tone. I have asked you time and time again on this website and you still have yet to tackle the question (or two) head on. Here they are again, slightly paraphrased:
Why should I trust your interpretation of scriputre over Johnathan's or Adomnan's?
Do you think that Christ intended for me to be taught by a trustworthy interpreter of scripture set up by Him or do you suppose he intended for me to go to university to learn the ancient languages and decide with my own knowledge(assuming I gained enough in grammar school) to decide which of you has the correct understanding of scripture?
And the one you never get around to answering:
By whose authority do you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture that I should default to your understanding?
Respectfully submitted, but with some degree of frustration
Peter,
By whose authority do you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture that I should default to your understanding?
Why, by his own “authority,” of course, who else? And have you not read the above decree of “super-pope” Ken?
“CASE CLOSED!”
What could be clearer? Or, to put it another way:
“Ken locuta est, causa finita est.” “Ken has spoken, the matter is finished.”
No doubt Pope Ken’s “predecessor,” SUPER DUPER POPE, Calvin, 
(Hi,y'all!) would be extremely proud!!
Irreverently submitted,
and also with a degree of frustration. (Ok, just having a little mischievous fun at your expense, Ken; don’t be offended). 
When the councils started adding things like Perpetual virginity of Mary ( clearly wrong - Matthew 1:18-25
So it is your position that nobody could look at Mt 1:18-25 and still beleive in the Perpetual virginity of Mary? So the church council that addressed this question was unaware of this text? Is that your position?
I know you don't really beleive that but you imply it by your statement. It is because you can't make sense of history as it actually happened. So you slander the bishops at the council by implying they were just too stupid to consider even the most obvious texts. Protestants are forced to assume such gross errors were made over and over again in church history. They need to disrespect virtually every saint. All so they can live with the fantasy that their theology is clear in scripture.
So it is your position that nobody could look at Mt 1:18-25 and still beleive in the Perpetual virginity of Mary? So the church council that addressed this question was unaware of this text? Is that your position?
Yes, they had a screw loose on this issue. Don't know if they actually even looked at the verses. Monasticism , asceticism, and Gnosticism was winning their minds toward this issue, it seems. Gnosticism was creeping in; some believed sex was dirty. Tatian and the encratites and other Gnostic groups forbid marriage (incipiently starting in Paul's day - I Timothy 4:1-4) Origen castrated himself. Then there is Simon Stylites.
Another monk or ascetic plucked out his eyes and later lamented the fact that he could still lust in his heart and mind as he was alone in that cave with his thoughts and fantacies.
We have hashed all this out before, but
The Odes of Solomon and Ascension of Isaiah and Proto-evangelium of James provide some of the background of the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine.
Jerome and Augustine and Clement of Alexandria provided more of the power behind this ridiculous doctrine and tradition of man.
that this is an essential christian doctrine; then you state your case and defend it Biblically and insist that this is not essential; which one has 'properly' interpreted scripture?
Pat,
Thanks for the question and the issue. I understand what you are saying; but you and Dave and Randy and my friend Rod Bennett, who wrote Four Witnesses; you are all trying to force something -- the implication of all this goes back to the enforcing church discipline, Inquisitions, the burning of heretics, the infant baptizers (paedo-Baptists) drowning the Ana-baptists and the believer's baptist groups. etc.
Personally, I beleive the baptist position on baptism is the most Biblical. But I can disagree with a Lutheran or Presbyterian and still be friends. Why not let them do their church their way (since they are intrenched and inveterate and won't listen to or believe in the Baptist view?
Why do RCs think it has to be forced into a heresy issue or church discipline issue or demanding perfection in every area; oh; except the RCC has there own issues that they have not defined yet and they still debate with each other over. The RCC leave open the question of Evolution. There are other issues.
Baptism is important and I do not believe in relativism; but I don't think it is necessary to push it beyond having a friendly debate; make your points; and then if they don't agree; they have their church and I have mine. What's the big deal?
Sometimes it seems like you guys want to go back to Inquistion, and witch trials, etc.
It seems arrogant to you for me to have this attitude that I dare have an interpretation on something that is different than the RCC position.
Why does not being able to know with infallible certainty about baptism trouble you so much? IF you know you are Christ's sheep and are in a church that you believe is right (RCC) then why sweat this issue? Why are worried about the Lutherans and the Baptists, since they are both wrong, according to your definition.
Peter,
I understand your point; I really do.
But, Why should I trust your church's interpretation?
Your apologetic method is just to create doubt and skepticism and seems weird that you have a human priest or pope or someone to tell you how to think and what to believe.
The skepticism is amazing. One can never be sure about anything the way you guys try to argue.
It just doesn't have much credibility in interpretation and history on those classic issues that Protestants bring up.
Ken,
You say in response to Peter:
"But why should I trust your church's interpretation?"
This is actually a great question. I hope you are asking this question in sincerity. I truly hope you are. It is precissely the issue of trust that is one of the main issues here. I found that taking this very question to its logical conclusion eventually had me asking the question of myself. IOW, "Why should I trust myself in these matters?" Am I to conclude, on my own accord, that my interpretation of scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit in my life assures me of the Truth regarding Divine Faith. And, I do this over and against any other person who claims the same for themselves. This is insanity. Christ does not leave His Church in such a state all while comanding unity at the same time. In fact, to borrow a saying from GK Chesterton this approach is like sawing from the tree the very branch you are sitting on. Eventually, it undermines the very Sciptures that Protestants seek to exalt.
As for having someone tell us how to think and what to believe, the opposite is the case in the RCC. The established dogmas are the boundaries that a Catholic stays within. A Catholic's right of private judgement is limited not absolute like Sola Scriptura demands. Also, I'm more than confident that when you preach to your congregation a good number of souls- Christ's sheep- are looking to you as someone to tell them how to think and what to believe. They trust that you are sent by God to be their leader. This is actually very natural. However, when a believer in a protestant church begins to practice the doctrine of Sola Scriptura for themselves and arrives at a different conclusion on an essential matter, then what? After all, Scripture Alone can bind the consciense. So, who are you to tell me how to think and believe Pastor so-and-so. You get get the idea of how this ecclesiual foundation-Sola scriptura- just might have a major flaw or two in it.
Yes, they had a screw loose on this issue. Don't know if they actually even looked at the verses [Matt. 1:18-25].
Well, Ken, I guess the reformers too had the same screw loose also!
John Wesley, in his Letter to a Roman Catholic, July 18, 1749, said:
“I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”
http://books.google.com/books?id...E2%80%9D%22&
lr=
And then we have Zwingli.
"I firmly believe that [Mary], according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."
And Luther:
In his 1523 treatise, That Jesus Christ was born a Jew, Luther said that "Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity... But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin." Luther’s Works, American Edition, Walther I. Brandt, ed., Philadelphia, Augsburg Fortress; St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1962, ISBN 0-8006-0345-1 pp. 205-206;
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Per...ant_Reformation
And you should be mindful of Augustine’s words regarding tradition:
“from whatever source it was handed down to the Church,— although the authority of the canonical Scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support” Letter 164:6.
http://www.archive.org/details/
f...hechur013359mbp
The Latin original of this letter appears in J. P. Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. 33, column 711 (PL 33, 711), published, 1902.
“De illo quidem primo homine patre generis humani quod eum indidem soluerint Ecclesia fere tota consentit quod eam non inaniter credidisse eredendum est; undecumque hoc traditum sit, etiamsi сanonicarum Scripturarum hinc expressa non proferatur auctoritas.”
http://books.google.com/books?id...nicarum+%22&
lr=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pat...trologia_Latina
Just something to keep in mind (though I know you’ve been reminded at least a thousand times of these or similar quotes).
Peace.
Yes,
They all (Wesley, Zwingli, Luther) had a screw loose on that issue also. They were great on some issues, but wrong on this one. They just could not part with the entrenched Roman Catholic dogma that was not biblical.
The established dogmas are the boundaries that a Catholic stays within.
But if some of them are wrong; then no one should stay within them.
Some are right and biblical, like the Trinity, Deity of Chirst, inspiration of Scripture, NT Canon; Atonement for sin on the cross, Virgin Birth; Jesus Sinless; Resurrection Physically from the dead; hell is real; God is one; God is creator.
But others were wrong --
Why can't they admit they were wrong on Perpetual Virginity (matthew 1:18-25, brothers of the Lord (Matthew 12:46-50), Immaculate Conception ( Luke 1:46; Romans 3:23), co-mediatrix ( I Tim. 2:5) , Sola Scriptura (2 Tim. 3:16, Jude 3, I Cor. 4:6, matthew 15; Mark 7), elders are the same as bishops ( I Tim. 3; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17-28.); Faith as the only instrument of justification (Romans 3:28; chapter 4,chapter 5; Galatians 3, John 3:16-18.); Pope - no such thing and not infallible ( Galatians 2). All true believers are priests ( I Peter 2:4-10); good works are the results of true faith; not condition for earning salvation ( James 2:14-26; Luke 7:35; Ephesians 2:8-10) ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext...lus#cite_note-
7
Debates in the RCC over “No salvation outside the church” are even more confusing for the sheep than the Lutheran and the Baptist disagreeing over baptism.
Vatican 2 is a real change from Trent and Council of Florence and Vatican I; that's why you have all the other groups like Feenyites, Society of St. Pius XII, Tradtitionalists, ultra-traditoinalists, Mel Gibson, Jerry Mattatics, Sedavecantism, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tra...nalist_Catholic
Catholic groups for ordination of women; gay catholic groups; catholics for the right to abortion, etc. Constant battles over liturgy--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ind...tholic_Churches
“Further, many clergy in the Independent Community believe in reincarnation, others reject the Trinity whilst still others (such as the Liberal Catholic Church) believe in theosophy and various forms of esotericism. These beliefs are heretical according to Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Utrecht and would render invalid the ordination of any who believed in them regardless of the ordaining prelate or the ritual used.”
How many others are there? What are there numbers?
Ken,
Ultimately there is no real debate on these issues. Dissent from the truth does not lessen the truth. What the Church reveals and teaches is infallible and those who choose to question the Church teeter on heresy or excommunicate themselves outright. It always amazes me that there are Catholic individuals and "groups" that actually believe that they have the luxury of picking and choosing what is and what is not true doctrine OR deciding what the Councils, especially Vatican 2, mean. For example, as Vatican 1 specifically says, it is the Magisterum ALONE, who has the purview to interpret what ""outside the Church no salvation" means.
As was stated above, the parameters are set to which a Catholic can "interpret" certain doctrines. As long as those boundaries are not crossed there is no problem. GK Chesterton once commented on the freedom that lies within the safety and walls of the Catholic Church's teaching. He described it as a playground.
In Truth,
Matthew
Ken,
Hey! As for the fact that there are debates in the RCC, this is exactly the heart of one of my initial questions to you. The truth is that in the RCC there is a method to resolve disputes and it is binding on all christians. This is the same exact model of ecclesiology we see in the bible (Acts 15). No surprise there. As for those Catholics who reject the official teaching of the Church's Magesterium; simply put they are merely acting like protestants. They just happen to stay in the RCC. Again, no surprise there. The Magesterium has spoken about these groups and thus as a sheep I know what to follow. The point is, I know where to locate the Truth of the Gospel in the visible, physical, human world. Protestants reject that such a thing exists at all in Christ's Church thus when disputes arise over essentials people are left to scatter and seperate. This is undeniably not biblical.
Amazing, Ken, you still evade my questions. You must not have an adequate answer.
Peter
Your apologetic method is just to create doubt and skepticism and seems weird that you have a human priest or pope or someone to tell you how to think and what to believe.
(Chorkle)And you don't see that you are trying to tell me how to think and what to believe? Until you can adequately demonstrate by whose authority you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture that I should default to your understanding of Christ, I dismiss your (mis)interpretations as heretical and I do so with peace of mind.
Peter
Yes, they had a screw loose on this issue. Don't know if they actually even looked at the verses [Matt. 1:18-25].
This statement boggles my mind. This is an eccumenical council. That means you have all the bishops world invited. Essentially anyone who is anyone in the Christian world is there. They are talking about the peretual virginity of Mary. How can you ever doubt they would consider Mat 1:18-25? Are you that clueless about the early church? Do you really believe they were so stupid? Even today, bishops as a group are very solid biblical thinkers. Back then the church would have attracted the very best minds of their generation to leadership. Yet you wonder whether ALL of them might be completely ignorant of one of the most well known passages of scripture? Wow.
Yes,
They all (Wesley, Zwingli, Luther) had a screw loose on that issue also. They were great on some issues, but wrong on this one. They just could not part with the entrenched Roman Catholic dogma that was not biblical.
So everyone else has a screw loose but you don't? Or maybe Mt 1:18-25 is not as clear as you say. It is clear to you but many other reasonable christians might not see it. Isn't that more probable than supposing everyone who does not see it has a screw loose?
I know the game you are playing. If you are going to dismiss the church's claim of infallibility you need an example of an error. In your mind there are some examples where the church has been clearly wrong. But how can you discount the possibility that you are wrong? Only if you can find an infallible basis for your own opinion. But you have assumed going in that no such infallible interpreter of scripture exists.
So you don't really have proof the church is fallible. You have a problem accepting their teaching as true. Welcome to the club. We all have problems accepting church teaching. Would you expect the truth of God to be easy?
I know I was shocked to find how far I was from God's truth. I was sure I was pretty close. But was that an argument against the church? Was there really a logical reason for me to believe I was closer to the truth than the church said I was? Or was it just arrogance? These are hard questions to face.
And the one you never get around to answering:
By whose authority do you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture that I should default to your understanding?
Peter,
You are just assuming that there is a human authority here on earth that is infallible.
The premise of your whole argument is wrong and unprove-able and unScriptural. That is why it is difficult to answer you directly; Because your question is like: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Yes, I understand where you are going with this line of thinking.
The bottom line is yes, as a human being with a mind, I trust John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-10; I Cor. 15:1-9 more than Boniface XIII and "everyone must be submitted to the Pope for salvation".
And I trust the Bible over Trent, Vatican I, 1854, and 1950. It is clearer to me than all of those things put together.
I trust what Matthew 1:18-25 over the perpetual virginity, and Wesley and luther and Zwingli on that issue.
I trust Romans 3-5 and Galatians over Trent and I am convinced that Luther and Calvin were right on that.
I trust that the symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper and Baptism are much closer to the truth in the Scriptures that baptismal regeneration and the RCC,, ex opere operato, and transubstantition.
I know using statues in worship and bowing in front of them is wrong. (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9)
I know praying to Mary is wrong. I Tim. 2:5
If I sound arrogant because I make a decision and have a brain and think I know the right interpretaion on that stuff; then I guess you can call me arrogant.
I am prideful and arrogant by nature. C. S. Lewis said the first step toward humility is confessing that you are proud.
I think we can have "humble confidence" and assurance and certainty without the infinite skepticism tactics of the modern RCC apologetic movement - Newman/arguments about the canon and church and deeper in history arguments.
The reason I continue to debate and discuss is to fight arrogance; learn; sharpen my writing skills; and because debate is fun and motivating to me.
Without debate; I get bored.
I like Chesterton's quote something like: " 'People say don't talk about politics or relgiion; it leads to too much controversy and debate.' Why not? I can't think of two more interesting subjects!
Ken, you did alot of typing but you never do actually answer the questions:
- Why should I trust your interpretation of scriputre over Johnathan's or Adomnan's?
- Do you think that Christ intended for me to be taught by a trustworthy interpreter of scripture set up by Him or do you suppose he intended for me to go to university to learn the ancient languages and decide with my own knowledge(assuming I gained enough in grammar school) to decide which of you has the correct understanding of scripture?
-And the one you never get around to answering:
By whose authority do you claim to have the correct interpretation of scripture that I should default to your understanding?
You evade the last one by trying to draw an analogy by typing:
Because your question is like: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
No it isn't. if I asked you that question you would simply have to answer that you do not beat your wife and you never have. I'm just asking you to explain to me why I should trust your interpretation of the things of Scripture?
Peter
If I sound arrogant because I make a decision and have a brain and think I know the right interpretaion on that stuff; then I guess you can call me arrogant.
It's not about whether you have a brain. It's about your reasons for believing what you do. Smart people can still have bad reasons for believing things, and as a person with a brain, you have a responsibility to articulating and explaining your reasons so that they can be examined critically. It is reasonable for another person to ask WHY you believe what you believe and HOW you know what you know and to expect that you will be able to answer them.
With that in mind, the question isn't WHETHER you trust the Bible but WHY you trust it. You criticize Peter, saying "You are just assuming that there is a human authority here on earth that is infallible." But haven't you done the same thing with the human authors of the Bible? Why should we believe them? Can't John or Paul or James or Peter "have a screw loose?"
For the Catholic, the recognition of the infallibility of Scripture is derivative from the existence of the Church. Scripture might well be intrinsically perfect, but you would never have any way of knowing that but for the authority of someone else. Likewise, we logically consent to the authority of Scripture because we consent to the authority of the bishops.
Without the bishops, there is no reason to consent to the authority of Scripture or even to think that it has authority. Continuity of normative culture is essential to recognition of any authority, but you stand as a critic to the same normative culture that delivered the Scripture in the first place. That is senseless and self-contradictory; you can't rely on a normative culture when you are criticizing the same principles on which those norms are grounded.
That's why I consider practically every Protestant defense of sola scriptura based on analogy to law or rule pathetic. At least since Oliver Wendell Holmes's brilliant analysis of the sources of legal authority, the arguments of a William Whitaker or a William Goode are simply question-begging obscurantism. This isn't a "have you stopped beating your wife?" type question. It is simply a request to make the same sort of articulation of the normative cultural bases for authority that we have done with secular law.
Thanks for articulating that for me Johnathan as I was wondering if I should explain myself first rather than wait for Ken to finally do so.
I once said to a Protestant that I beileved in Christ because I believe in His Catholic Church. The guy looked at me as if I had two heads. I suppose that it would have been best to follow that blunt statement up with the fine thoughts of yours above, but it just seemed so natural and reasonable for me to think that way that I thought there was no need to explain it. I sometimes feel that my faith in Christ's power and fidelity to His people is partially proven through my confidence in His Church. Does that last statement make any sense at all?
Peter
I sometimes feel that my faith in Christ's power and fidelity to His people is partially proven through my confidence in His Church. Does that last statement make any sense at all?
Absolutely, because being Catholic is the ultimate testimony to God's grace. We make no bones about our complete incapacity to do anything except through what God gives us. By contrast, the Protestant approach is to point out what we don't need, how independent we are of God's grace. We can preserve Scripture through human effort, and we can interpret it through human effort. Basically, once revelation was "inscripturated," we just don't need God anymore.
Oh, sure, they'll claim that Christians need "the internal witness of the Holy Spirit," but that doesn't actually require them to depend on anyone but themselves. Moreover, it is functionally meaningless given their own creedal belief that the Scripture can be interpreted by ordinary means and their endorsement of mundane human techniques of preservation and interpretation as adequate for the interpretation of Scripture. Ordinary providence is enough.
By contrast, the Catholic is not ashamed to admit that he depends on the Church for his faith. We admit, quite bluntly, that if God had not given us a Church, there is absolutely no way we would have been able to accept God on our own. As contrasted with someone who believes that he came to this opinion on his own (perhaps somehow supercharged by the Holy Spirit while nonetheless relying on mundane human scholarship and ordinary providence), it is clear that the Catholic is maintaining far more dependence on God's grace than any Protestant. The Protestant has no need for grace apart from ordinary providence; his own effort (post-regeneration, whatever that means) suffices to reach the divine.
Can't John or Paul or James or Peter "have a screw loose?"
No, not in their writings, because they were God-breathed. 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:16
For the Catholic, the recognition of the infallibility of Scripture is derivative from the existence of the Church.
Yes, I understand that is the RCC position. But it does not follow. There is no verse that says the infallibility of Scripture is dependent on the existence of the church. But I understand the point.
Scripture might well be intrinsically perfect, but you would never have any way of knowing that but for the authority of someone else.
The writing itself says it is perfect. (infallible, inerrant) 2 Tim. 3:16 -- not bishops or apostles as people.
Likewise, we logically consent to the authority of Scripture because we consent to the authority of the bishops.
Bishops (or elders, pastoral and teaching/leading office) was established by the apostles, but once the apostles stopped writing and they died; the canon was closed then. They are there to lead and teach ( I Timothy 3, Titus 1, I Peter 5, Acts 20) there is nothing about their authority to base trust in the Scriptures upon the second of third or fourth or 100th generation of bishops or elders. If it was apostolic, seems that Paul or Peter would have written that "after we are dead, the bishps and elders, when their is dispute over a passage; they will be able to give you the infallible interpretation", etc.
That is not how Peter spoke about the issue of what will they do after the apostles die? 2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:1; 3:16 -- Peter told them to keep referring and remind themselves of the Scripture, the more sure word of prophesy, which was not originated in man; but in God the Holy Spirit.
This statement boggles my mind. This is an eccumenical council.
Which ecumenical council actually declared Mary's perpetual virginity to be dogma?
Nicea II ?
So everyone else has a screw loose but you don't?
I am not alone; most Protestants don't believe in Perpetual virginity of Mary; granted Luther held on that view, because to him it seemed true and he inherited that view from the RCC of his day and it did not affect the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Zwingli same thing. Wesley was much later. By then there were lots of people seeing the truth of it. Majority view does not make it right.
The writing itself says it is perfect. (infallible, inerrant) 2 Tim. 3:16 -- not bishops or apostles as people.
And it is irrational to believe the writing, because you have no reason for thinking that the author is infallible. You should be equally critical of the Apostles and the other Scriptural authors as you are of the Magisterium. You can't believe what they say simply because they say it. So even if Scripture SAYS it is inerrant, Scripture can't be the basis for you KNOWING it.
Bishops (or elders, pastoral and teaching/leading office) was established by the apostles, but once the apostles stopped writing and they died; the canon was closed then.
For what reason? How did the canon ever become open in the first place? Who ever said that there was a New Testament canon? I understand why I believe that, because I believe the Church's authority. But I have no idea why you believe it.
They are there to lead and teach ( I Timothy 3, Titus 1, I Peter 5, Acts 20) there is nothing about their authority to base trust in the Scriptures upon the second of third or fourth or 100th generation of bishops or elders. If it was apostolic, seems that Paul or Peter would have written that "after we are dead, the bishps and elders, when their is dispute over a passage; they will be able to give you the infallible interpretation", etc.
On the contrary, the Bible presumes apostolic authority merely in the fact that the Apostles' statements are to be believed on their authority. Absent the authority of the Apostles, there wouldn't be a reason to accept the Scriptures in the first place. What I don't understand is why your adherence to authority is thoroughly ad hoc. You haven't outlined any reason why the Apostles are different from anyone else, particularly with respect for their capacity to err. If I lacked the authoritative testimony of the Church in the present day, then I would have no cause to accept the authority of the Apostles. And indeed, this is why numerous Protestants quite reasonably deny the inerrancy of Scripture. If you deny the authority of the Church, then there is no good reason to accept the authority of the Apostles either.
Ken,
At this point I would simply add to what Jonathan has said just above that the reason you accept scripture with 27 NT books called the Bible is because someone told you this in the first place. This by definition is tradition. In fact the Bible itself is part of big "T" Tradition. What do you accept this kind of Tradition as binding on you and not others?
The last sentence should read: Why do you accept this kind of Tradition as binding and not other types of Tradition?
STILL WAITING FOR THE PRIMARY SOURCES; EVEN THE NAMES OF WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS YOU (KEN) PRODUCED:
Prayer: O Mary, no one receives any favor except through you. Help me to ask you each day for the graces I need to remain faithful in my state of life."
O Mary, your holy name is great and brings us salvation. Let me strive to speak it with true love, boundless joy, and complete confidence."
O Mary, you are our Mother and our Teacher, instructing us in how to live. Help me to heed your inspirations and follow your Divine Son more closely.
THANK YOU. WHEN I GET THIS BASIC INFORMATION, THEN PERHAPS I CAN EXAMINE CONTEXT AND GO FROM THERE. ELEMENTARY STUFF . . .
No, not in their writings, because they were God-breathed. 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:16
So when a prophet uttered one of his "Thus saith the Lord" statements, I suppose he was not uttering the inerrant word of God? The prophet's listeners should not have paid any attention because the bible doesn't claim that his words were God breathed?
So, when one of the apostles was orally preaching the word of God it was not really the word of God? Should the apostles listeners not have paid any attention because the apostle's oral teachings are not called God breathed in the bible?
I gave you the source. Here it is again.
Mary Day by Day, Rev. Charles G. Fehrenbach, C. SS. R., Catholic Book Publishing: New York, 1987.
one of the quotes is on page 99. The others are there in previous posts. The book does say exactly who edited it; although one would assume those 3 gentleman did together.
Subtitile: Marian Meditations for Every Day Taken from the Holy Bible and the Writings of the Saints.
Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J. C. D. , Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: Patrick J. Sheridan, D. D.
Vicar General, Archdiocese of New York.
Originally, I cited it as this, but left out Rev. Charles G. Fehrenbach
Sorry I left out that name; I guess I was in a hurry and focused on the Imprimatu and Nihil Obstat
(it says "with an introduction by Rev. Charles G. Fehrenbach. It does not precisely say he is editor; if not him; it does not tell us. I bought this book for $ 6.00 at a local book store near my home.
pp. 98-99 Mary Day by Day,
1987 Catholic Book Publishing, Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn . . . Imprimatur: Patrick J. Sheridan, D.D. Vicar General, Archdiocese of NY.
Pat and Peter and Jonathan,
The Canon of the NT is historical external evidence that confirms the internal evidence of the writings being God -breathed.
The fact that the NT is an
1. anthology of different books by different writers; and
2. these books did not come to the NT writers all at once or in one person only or "come down from heaven"all at once; like in Islam --
" tanzil" (Arabic) a coming down from heaven; almost like a pouring somethings through a straw; like in Islam)
3. collecting them all together under one "book cover"
4. dealing with persecution and the Romans burning the Scriptures and the opposition from general culture and at the beginning the Jews who rejected Christ
5. Dealing with heretics and other writings
6. The hand copying and lack of printing press, etc.
All of these 6 issues only point out that the recognition of what is in the Canon of the NT was a historical process, and not in itself a function of inspiration or "God-breathed" -ness.
When the last book was written, either 68-69 AD or 80 AD (Jude) or 90-96 (John, Revelation, 3 letters of John); it was "canon" (criterion, standard, rule, principle) at that point in time; the discovery of it and recognition of it happened later, first recorded for us by Athanasius in 367 AD, 39th Festal letter) --
Personally, I believe all these books were written before 70 AD, based on internal evidence.
Any case, knowing that something is canon is different than it actually being canon.
1. Being the Canon (inspired by God, at the point when written, 48-69 AD)
2. Knowing that it is Canon ( historical process of struggle through 367 AD and by 400 AD)
Being vs. Knowing -- just because the bishops and councils and history got it right on that area; does not mean that the whole RCC (which is much later) is infallible.
I can accept history and the early fathers for what they are and accept their good points and reject their bad points; same with Luther and Calvin and Wesley and Zwingli. All of these people are not infallible, and neither is the RCC nor the pope.
These are two different things, ontologically and epistemologically.
That is, it was "canon" (standard, criterion, basis, rule, principle) as soon as the ink dried in 49-69 AD; and that is a function of inspiration or the "God-breathed" quality. ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:1; 3:16; John 17:8, Jude 3, etc.)
So, the "tradition" that Paul and the apostles talk about was the teachings and doctrines of the gospel and NT ( I Cor. 11:1, 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Jude 3) -- those traditions are infallible, the oral teaching of the apostles, but they were all written down eventually and contained in the Scriptures.
This can be assumed because of the way Paul writes Romans -- he lays out the gospel systematically, becasue he has not been there yet. all the other churches he planted or ministered in; so they heard his full gopsel orally. Once the NT books were all written down, it was only a matter of time and struggle under the persecution and heresies and nature of the different locations, different writers, etc. to figure out which ones which were which.
So, we accept the tradition as a historical confirmation of external witness and evidence confirming the God-breathed quality of the books; but that historical process in itself is not infallible; although it was correct.
Until there is evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to be skeptical. We accept it by faith and reason and evidence.
The internal witness of the Holy Spirit, the quality of the writings
confirm and witness and help us know and discover the canon; along with
the writings of the ECF, like Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen (even though a heretic on other issues), and especially Athanasius certainly help us.
2. Knowing that it is Canon ( historical process of struggle through 367 AD and by 400 AD)
Should have been:
2. Knowing that it is Canon ( historical process of struggle from 70 or 96 AD until 367 AD and by 400 AD)
Ken,
I suspect that if others respond you will get a great deal of agreement about what you said. You will also get sharp disagreement, or maybe I should say points of clarification about what you said. In short, I'm not sure you said much at all in favor of Sola Scriptura. In fact, what you stated contradicts Sola Scriptura. For example, you said:
"We accept it by faith and reason and evidence."
Ken, by definition this is not Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura insists that all revealed truth comes from Scriptura •Alone• and is binding on the christian. Your contention that things like reason, evidence or History are valid to KNOW the TRUTH of what is or is not INSPIRED contradicts your doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The question for you is correctly implied by your comments and that is, how did the Church come to KNOW (epistemology) that the 27 books are indeed God-breathed? Sola Scriptura can not answer this question. I think you are correct about there BEING a NT once the ink dried. So what? How did the Church come to KNOW which books were God-breathed and which were not since Scripture itself does not say? It actually wouldn't matter if Scripture did say because of the deeper issue surrounding proper authority. Be that as it may for now. The issue here is that God KNEW which books He Inspired and that 'knowledge' is in the knower (in this case God Himself). In answering how the Church came to Know that these are indeed the books that are God-breathed it is necessary to go outside of the words written in Scripture to get the proper answer. Thus, KNOWLEDGE of the Canon of the NT IS indeed revealed Truth. And, since this is the case, ie, that KNOWLEDGE of the canon is a revealed Truth, and since this certain KNOWLEDGE came outside the Apostolic Age as you indicate with Athanasius ( in short, at the Council's of Rome, Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century) then,it makes perfect sense to trust that the Holy Spirit infallibly lead these Council's in knowing the exact extent of the Canon and thus closing it at 27 books. To •not• believe that the Holy Spirit lead the Church infallibly leaves the question wide open thus making this comment of yours incoherent:
"So, we accept the tradition as a historical confirmation of external witness and evidence confirming the God-breathed quality of the books; but that historical process in itself is not infallible; although it was correct. "
This is the old silly idea of, "A fallible collection of Infallible books" This makes no sense whatsoever as I've indicated above. Precisely because it impossible to KNOW that you are 'correct', as you seem to want to believe, if your starting point is fallibility. Why not just admit that you don't KNOW for sure if you have all the right books in your NT? Then, you could also be honest by giving a disclaimer before, during and after every sermon by saying that you are fallible so anything you preach might be wrong. After
Rev. Temple:
You've missed the point rather badly. Here are some specific areas where you've simply not addressed the critique.
So, the "tradition" that Paul and the apostles talk about was the teachings and doctrines of the gospel and NT ( I Cor. 11:1, 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Jude 3) -- those traditions are infallible, the oral teaching of the apostles, but they were all written down eventually and contained in the Scriptures.
How do you know that these traditions, the teachings and doctrines of the Apostles, are infallible? Scripture makes a claim of being God-breathed, but how do you know that it is? There are no records of observing this phenomenon, no EEGs strapped to anyone's heads while they were writing or the like. History requires cultural continuity and common experience, so how would one be able to verify inspiration historically? It doesn't make sense. What one can verify historically is that Christians of the past believed that Scripture was inspired, but unless there is some sort of continuity in norma