July 16, 2004
Inspiration of the Bible: An Excerpt From Catholicism and Fundamentalism, The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians
Over the years I have spent a lot of time pondering the Scriptures as well as the claims of various denominations in terms of the inspiration of the Bible. As I have always found, the Protestant explanation is wanting. It lacks substance. Many reach the conclusion that the Bible is inspired simply because they believe it is or because the Bible claims to be. But does it really? Below is a chapter from the book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians". Keating is an active apologist, writing multiple books, debating with various Protestant leaders over the main dividing issues between Catholics and Protestants, and speaking across the country to Catholics interested in learning more about their Catholic Faith. The chapter I have quoted here is on the understanding of the inspiration of the Bible. It fairly presents the Protestant claims as well as the Catholic answer. Enjoy!
The Reformers said the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, and its understanding must be found by looking only at the words of the text. No outside authority may impose an interpretation, and no outside authority, such as the Church, has been established by Christ as an arbiter. As heirs of the Reformers, fundamentalists work on the basis of sola scriptura, and they advance this notion at every opportunity. One might think it would be easy for them to explain why they believe this principle.Yet there is perhaps no greater frustration, in dealing with fundamentalists, than in trying to pin them down on why the Bible should be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone as the sole rule of faith. It all reduces to the question of why fundamentalists accept the Bible as inspired, because the Bible can be taken as a rule of faith only if it is first held to be inspired and thus inerrant.
Now this is a problem that does not keep most Christians awake at night. Most have never given it any serious thought. To the extent they believe in the Bible, they believe in it because they operate in a milieu that is, if post-Christian in many ways, still steeped in Christian ways of thought and presuppositions. A lukewarm Christian who would not give the slightest credence to the Koran would think twice about casting aspersions on the Bible. It has a certain official status for him, even if he cannot explain it. One might say he accepts the Bible as inspired (whatever that may mean for him) for some "cultural" reason, but that, of course, is hardly a sufficient reason, since on such a basis the Koran rightly would be considered inspired in a Moslem country.
Similiarly, it is hardly enough to say that one's family has always believed in the Bible, "and that's good enough for me". It may indeed be good enough for the person disinclined to think, and one should not disparage a simple faith, even if held for an ultimately weak reason, but mere custom cannot establish the inspiration of the Bible.
Some fundamentalists say they believe the Bible is inspired because it is "inspirational", but that is a word with a double meaning. On the one hand, if used in the strict theological sense, it clearly begs the question, which is: How do we know the Bible is inspired, that is, "written" by God, but through human authors? And if "inspirational" means nothing more than "inspiring" or "moving", then someone with a deficient poetic sense might think the works of a poetaster are inspired.
Parts of the Bible, including several whole books of the Old Testament, canot be called "inspirational" in this sense in the least, unless one works on the principle of the elderly woman who was soothed every time she heard "the blessed word Mesopotamia." One betrays no disrespect in admitting that some parts of the Bible are as dry as military statistics--indeed, some partsare nothing but military statistics--and there is little there that can move the emotions.
So, it is not enough to believe in the inspiration of the Bible merely out of culture or habit, nor is it enough to believe in its inspiration because it is a beautifully written or emotion-stirring book. there are other religious books, and even some plainly secular ones, that outscore most of the Bible when it comes to fine prose or poetry.
What about the Bible's own claim to inspiration? There are not many places where such a claim is made even tangentially, and most books in the Old and New Testaments make no such claim at all. In fact, no New Testament writer seemed to be aware that he was writing under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the author of Revelation. Besides, even if every biblical book began with the phrase "the following is an inspired book", such phrases would prove nothing. The Koran claims to be inspired, as does the Book of Mormon, as do the holy books of various Eastern religions. Even the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, claim inspiration. The mere claim of inspiration is insufficient to establish a book's bona fides.These tests failing, most fundamentalists fall back on the notion that "the Holy Spirit tells me the Bible is inspired", an exercise in subjectivism that is akin to their claim that the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting the text. For example, the anonymous author of How Can I Understand the Bible? a booklet distributed by the Radio Bible Class, lists twelve rules for Bible study. The first is "seek the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been given to illumine the Scriptures and make them alive to you as you study them. Yield to his enlightenment." If one takes this as meaning that anyone asking for a proper interpretation will be given one by God--and that is exactly how many fundamentalists understand the assistance of the Holy Spirit to work--then the multiplicity of interpretations, even among fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing sense that the Holy Spirit has not been doing his job very effectively.
Most fundamentalists do not say, in so many words, that the Holy Spirit has spoken to them directly, assuring them of the inspiration of the Bible. They do not phrase it like that. Rather, in reading the Bible they are "convicted" that it is the word of God, they get a positive "feeling" that it is inspired, and that's that--which often reduces their acceptance of the Bible to culture or habit. No matter how it is looked at, the fundamentalist's position is not one that is rigorously reasoned to. It must be the rare fundamentalist who, even for the sake of argument, first approaches the Bible as though it is not inspired and then, on reading it, syllogistically concludes it is. In fact, fundamentalists begin with the fact of inspiration--just as they take the other doctrines of fundamentalism as givens, not as deductions--and then they find things in the Bible that seem to support inspiration, claiming, with circular reasoning, that the Bible confirms its inspiration, which they knew all along.
The man who wrestles with the fundamentalist approach to inspiration at length is unsatisfied because he knows he has no good grounds for his belief. The Catholic position is the only one, ultimately, that can satisfy the intellect. The Catholic method of finding the Bible to be inspired begins this way. The Bible is approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than that accuracy of any other ancient work.
Sir Frederic Kenyon notes that
"[f]or all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscripts of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600."Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. Not only are the biblical manuscripts we have older than those for classical authors, we have in absolute numbers far more manuscripts to work from. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. What this means is that we can be sure we have an accurate text, and we can work from it in confidence.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, particularly the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels. We examine the account of Jesus' life and death and his reported Resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves, what we find in extrabiblical writings from the early centuries, and what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural theology, know of divine nature), we conclude that Jesus either was just what he claimed to be, God, or was a madman. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, because no merely good man would make the claims he made.)
We are able to eliminate his being a madman not just from what he said—no madman ever spoke as he did; for that matter, no sane man ever did either—but from what his followers did after his death. A hoax (the supposedly empty tomb) is one thing, but one does not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they have no prospect of advantage. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead and that he was therefore God and, being God, meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
One thing he said he would do was found a Church, and from both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not at this point in the argument as an inspired one) and other ancient works, we see that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of all we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the note of infallibility.
We thus have taken purely historical material and concluded that there exists a Church, which is the Catholic Church, divinely protected against teaching error. Now we are at the last part of the argument. That Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book.
Here is how Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C. E. M. Joad:
“We now approach the Bible, and approach it in the same spirit as that in which we should approach any other human document. We do not believe the Bible merely because it is the Bible, but because we are convinced of its veracity by rational references similar in kind to those which convince us of other historical facts. We do not, for instance, accept the fact that Christ rose from the dead merely because we find the Resurrection recorded in the Gospels; we accept the Resurrection because, of all theories which have been put forward to explain the origin of Christianity, the only theory which fits all the facts is the theory that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and proved his claim by rising from the dead….The Roman Catholic, then, claims to prove from the Bible, which he is still treating as a purely human document, that Christ intended to found an infallible Church. Where, then, is this Church? The Roman Catholic Church alone possesses, so the Catholic believes, all the “notes” which enable us to distinguish between the Church which Christ founded and its heretical rivals. The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority, it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.”
Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument.What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible was inspired. As Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”
What has just been discussed is not, obviously, the kind of mental exercise people go through before putting trust in the Bible, but it is the only truly reasonable way to do so. Every other way is inferior—psychologically adequate, perhaps, but actually inferior. In mathematics we accept on “faith” that one and one make two and that one, when added to any integer, will produce the next-highest integer. These truths seem elementary to us, and we are satisfied to take such things at face value, but apprentice mathematicians must go through a semester’s course the whole of which is taken up demonstrating such “obvious” truths. Fundamentalists are quite right in believing the Bible is inspired, but their reasons for so believing are inadequate because knowledge of the inspiration of the Bible can be based only on an authority established by God to tell us the Bible is inspired, and that authority is the Church.
Here a more serious problem enters. It seems to some that it makes little difference why one believes in the Bible’s inspiration, just so one believes in it. But the basis for one’s beliefs in its inspiration directly affects how one goes about interpreting the Bible. The Catholic believes in inspiration because the Church tell him so—that is putting it bluntly—and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text. Fundamentalists believe in inspiration, although on weak grounds, but they have no interpreting authority other than themselves.
Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration published in 1884:
“Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility.”J. Derek Holmes emphasizes that
“[t]hroughout his argument Newman never ignored the main point, that since the writing was irregular, inconsistent, or incomplete, it was antecedently highly improbable that it would contain the whole of the revealed Word of God. The Bible did not contain a complete secular history, and there was no reason why it should contain a complete account of religious truth. It was unreasonable to demand an adequate scriptural foundation for Church doctrines, if the impression gained from the Bible was of writers who took solemn and sacred truths for granted and who did not give a complete or full treatment of the sense of revelation. The writings did not reflect all the beliefs of the writer and events were often presented without comment or moral implication.”Fundamentalists’ understanding of inspiration directly affects the way they interpret the Bible and the doctrines they discover in it. Many—not all those writing treatises, but some of them and certainly many in the pews—subscribe to what reduces to a dictation theory of inspiration. This is unfortunate, because “a ‘dictation’ theory may seem a natural account of some experiences of the prophets, but it is psychologically incredible when applied to St. Luke writing his prologue of St. Paul writing to Philemon.” A suggestion of the troubles faced by fundamentalists who subscribe to the dictation theory or its practical equivalents comes in passages such as 1 Corinthians 1:14-16. Here is what Paul writes: “Thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius; so that no one can say it was in my name you were baptized. (Yes, and I did baptize the household of Stephanas; I do not know that I baptized anyone else.)” Under the dictation theory, with Paul simply transcribing what God whispered in his ear, one would have to conclude God temporarily forgot who it was Paul baptized. Other examples could be given to show that inspiration is more subtle than many people suspect.
Here is another problem. How does one, on fundamentalist terms, decide when more than one interpretation of a particular passage is allowable and when only one can be admitted? The Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings.
Take, as an example, Jonah’s escapade at sea, which readers often find disturbing. Ronald Knox said “no defender of the sense of Scripture ever pretended, surely, that this was a natural event. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle; and not to my mind a more startling miracle than the raising of Lazarus, in which I take it Catholics are certainly bound to believe. Surely what puts one off the story of Jonah is the element of the grotesque which is present in it.” Actually, what happened to Jonah can be looked at three ways, one of which relies on nothing miraculous occurring at all.
The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and this disgorged by a “great fish” is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholic are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view, but one seldom will find a fundamentalist who thinks of Jonah as allegory or anything of that sort, although he really has no authority for opting for one interpretation over another.
Strictly literal interpretations of what happened to Jonah actually come in two forms. One relies on the fact that people apparently have been swallowed by whales and lived to talked it. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. If Jonah’s three days in the whale were counted like Christ’s three days in the tomb, after the Semitic fashion—that is, parts of three distinct days, but perhaps only slightly more than twenty-four hours total—then it is possible that Jonah could have been coughed up by that great fish just as his story says. This would be a purely natural explanation of the episode.
The other literal interpretation is that Jonah indeed underwent what the story, read as straight history, says he did, but survived only because of a positive miracle, and several different sorts of miracles have been suggested, such as suspended animation on Jonah’s part or a fish with a remarkably large air supply and decidedly mild gastric juices.
Related to the problem of inspiration is the problem of the canon of Scripture. What books constitute the Bible? Catholics can repair to the decisions of the Church, most clearly formalized at Trent and at the fourth-century councils at Hippo and Carthage; these produced lists of books that are to be accepted as inspired on the authority of the infallible Church. Inspired books, taken together, form the Bible. That is the Catholic way to answer the question. What does a fundamentalist fall back on?
William G. Most discusses the rather surprising comments made in 1910 by Gerald Birney Smith, professor at the University of Chicago and speaker at that year’s Baptist Congress. As Most says, “Smith’s frankness was really remarkable. He reviewed every way he knew to determine which books are or are not inspired” and thus to be included in the canon.
Smith explained that “Luther proposed a practical test…The distinction which he actually had in mind was between those writings which have the power to bring men the assurance of forgiveness through Christ and those which have no such power.” Luther was of course relying on his doctrine of salvation by faith alone (not, as Paul would have it, salvation by faith, which is a different thing, implying faith is a prerequisite for salvation but itself insufficient). “Luther thought a book that intensely preaches this doctrine was inspired”, explains Most, “otherwise not. Of course, he never provided proof for such a standard. Nor could it be a standard, for Luther, or any other writer, could compose a book that would preach according to Luther’s requirements; yet that book need not on that account be inspired.”
Smith, continuing his analysis of the Protestant basis for determining the canon, note that John Calvin, in his Institutes, offered a different test: “The word will never gain credit in the hearts of men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit.” This claim, too—relying on subjective “feelings”—was useless, Smith said, referring to the assaults on the Bible that were prevalent even a long lifetime ago. “The application of this test…would eliminate the existing distinction between canonical and non-canonical writings more completely than would the most radical conclusions of biblical criticism.” After all, many parts of Scripture do not seem uplifting at all, such as 1 and 2 Chronicles, also known as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, which, like much of Numbers and Deuteronomy, are dull—not the style of writing that shouts, “I’m inspired!” And some clearly noncanonical and thus noninspired books such as Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ are more moving than many whole books of the Bible.
Most notes that “what Professor Smith demonstrates is that for a Protestant there simply is no way to know which books are inspired. That means, in practice, that a Protestant, if he is logical, should not appeal to Scripture to prove anything; he has no sure means of knowing which books are part of Scripture!”
One consequence of this inability to ascertain the canon has been that the Protestant Bible is an incomplete Bible. Missing are the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees, as well as sections of Esther (10:4 to 16:24) and Daniel (3:24-90 and chapters 13 and 14). These are known to Catholics as the deuteron-canonical works. They are just as much a part of the Bible as the rest of the Old Testament, the proto-canonical books. Luther rejected the deutero-canonical books and passages largely because they conflicted with his theological theories. In 2 Maccabees 12:46, for instance, it is said that “it is holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins”—a reference to purgatory. Such a book had to go—it did not mesh with the Reformer’s doctrines. (Luther even spoke disparagingly about some of the New Testament books, such as James, but he was unable to find a rationale for removing them from the canon.)
However easy it may have been for the Reformers to say that some books are inspired and thus in the canon, while others are not, they in fact had no solid grounds for making such determinations. Ultimately, an infallible authority is needed if we are to know what belongs in the Bible and what does not. Without such an authority, we are left to our own prejudices, and we cannot tell if our prejudices lead us in the right direction.
The advantages of the Catholic approach to proving inspiration are two. First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt”. Second, the main fact behind the proof—the fact of an infallible teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31): How is one to know what interpretations are right? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes its inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret his word.
- Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”, Karl Keating, chapter 9, pgs.121-133
In Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Joe
As per our discussion on the Bible and inspiration. Here was my last post on the topic. I believe you asking for proof that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God.
"Joe,
All of these books in some way shape or form confess testifying about Jesus.
My friend, they were inspired by Jesus to write. How can you deny this?
"Luke 1:3 simply says that it seemed good to him that he write the Gospel down not that he had been inspired to write down the divine Word of God."
What was it that made the author feel that it was good to write? What did he investigate? It was the accounts of Christ and His teachings. Which after further investigation moved the author to write. God inspired this author to write.
"1 Jn 1:3 simply says they wrote to make their joy complete not that everything they wrote was the inspired Word of God"
Again Joe, joy moved this author to write. Where does his joy come from? Could it be God himself? Peter in 1 Peter1:8 refers to this as INEXPRESSIBLE JOY. This joy obviously is from God almighty and therefore makes it divine. Since it did inspire John to write that makes it divine inspiration.
"2 Pet 3:15 says, in truth, "according to the wisdom given him". You must be using the New International Version of the Bible. This sentence in the Greek does not contain the word "Oeou" or any other form of this word which is translated "God". In the King James, the Rheims, the New American Standard, the New American, the Amplified, and the New Revised Standard the assumption isn't made. Therefore this verse is simply saying that Paul wrote with wisdom but it does not make the claim that Paul was writing the divinely inspired Word of God."
Again...who gave Paul his wisdom? Lets look at the facts. Paul refers to himself as a slave to Christ. Paul is teaching about Christ. Paul testifies about Christ. Now, who gave Paul this wisdom? God himself. If you want to say I am wrong for believing God to provide men with wisdom....so be it.
So once again with a resounding yes, yes the authors of the Bible clearly show that their inspiration to write was from the God, Christ or the Spirit.
"For God GIVES WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE and JOY to a man who is good in His sight;" (Ecclesiastes 2:26)
The only way that the authors confess to being inspired by God is not clear is if you do not believe that God gives men their wisdom, joy, and that God is good.
As for your last question...once again, look at the previous answer.
Be blessed"
Now I am just curious...you had asked me how do I know that the Bible is indeed the inspired words of God. Now I am asking, how do you know that the RCC is the inspired infallible way of God?
Be blessed
Posted by: Jeff at July 16, 2004 3:45 PMJoe,
This excerpt from Keating is interesting. I’d like to review it if I may:
First of all Keating gives us an oversimplification of what “fundamentalist” believe. I could question a number of Catholics why they believe that the Scripture is inspired and then attack their weak arguments as well. So the first few paragraphs are of little interest to me. It is like me stating that Catholics worship Mary, and then giving you a very reasoned explanation why this is not Scriptural. In other words he is oversimplifying the Protestant/fundamentalist reasoning behind Sola Scriptura.
More interesting is his explanation of the Catholic view. I follow him and agree with him (I have even posted items along the same lines under other posts, and I might add, I have been shot down. I guess its because I’m a Protestant. I don’t have the authority to say these types of things. ;) ) until he gets to this sentence
"One thing he said he would do was found a Church, and from both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not at this point in the argument as an inspired one) and other ancient works, we see that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of all we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the note of infallibility."
Now I would agree with Keating that Christ stated that he would found a church, but he makes the assumption that the meaning he attaches to passages in the Bible is the correct one. These are no small assumptions. Without further interpretation these passages in the historic Bible that Keating believes speak of a papacy, priesthood, teaching authority and infallibility are far from clear. How does Keating know that his interpretation of these passages are correct? He does the only thing he can do, which is fall back on the “and other ancient writings” evidence, unfortunately these are the writings of individuals who lived 200-400 years removed from the events and passages they are interpreting. There were other writers during those times who were writing completely different interpretations of the Bible. These writers as well as the writers that I assume Keating is referring to, also espoused interpretations of Scripture that Keating would not agree with. How does Keating know which writers know the real truth and which do not? And further how does Keating know which part of which writing is correct and which is not? And how do we know that these ancient writings weren’t written in an attempt to have a Biblical justification to what was already in existence, and not a true interpretation? Remember this is before we get to the fact that there is a Church with any kind of authority to tell us this. He is attempting to prove this fact without using this authority. We are never told how he comes to this assumption, and Keating moves on assuming we are following him along.
“Thus we have taken purely historical material and concluded that there exists a Church, which is the Catholic Church, divinely protected against teaching error.”
Whoa, wait up for a second . . . How do we know that this Church that was established is the Catholic Church, and not some other Church? Once again we are left to assume that this is the case with no further explanation and no further proof.
“That Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book.”
So in other words we use the Church’s interpretation of the historical Bible, why we should do this we aren’t told, and extrapolate from this interpretation that the historical Bible teaches that the Catholic Church is infallible and that because of this infallibility and the fact that the Church has declared the Bible inspired, we should believe that the Bible is inspired. We are then told that this really isn’t circular logic but spiral logic, and then Keating walks off patting us poor “fundamentalist” on the head as if we are mere morons for thinking that our “inferior” reasons are actually intelligent.
I’m afraid Keating’s argument is merely a circular argument with an extra step. Is this what you are claiming is a satisfactory explanation of the divine nature of Scripture? Is this explanation what you have pinned your beliefs on? Come on please tell me that you have more than just this.
And are you telling me that no one had the authority to interpret the Old Testament until the time that the Catholic Church was established? And yet it tells us in Deuteronomy 6: 6-7 “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.” How were the Israelites to do this if they couldn’t also interpret these commandments? If you say that the ancient Israelite priesthood had this authority, my response would be that the ancient priesthood never claimed to be infallible, and the Old and New Testament clearly shows that it was not. So maybe infallibility is not a requirement to have interpretation as Keating suggests.
One more thing when anyone quotes this quote, “Augustine said ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’” All I have to say is that Augustine was a great thinker and a great apologetic of the faith, but he was also a product of his time and he was dead wrong here. So stop quoting Augustine as if all his words were infallible. I don’t think even the Church has declared that, at least not yet . . . Faith in the Gospel should never originate from the Church’s authority, as if the Church had the authority to teach any Gospel it wants to and require us to believe it.
“Here is another problem. How does one, on fundamentalist terms, decide when more than one interpretation of a particular passage is allowable and when only one can be admitted? The Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings.”
There are systematic rules of hermeneutics for interpretation of Scripture. I don’t know what they are, but they are taught at most protestant seminaries across the world. Once again Keatings over simplifies the “fundamentalist” approach to interpretation. Then he in turn criticizes those approaches. Then he tells us that when the Church is silent on certain passages Catholics are free to believe whatever they want to. Isn’t there a true interpretation out there? We may never know what that truth is, but aren’t we obligated to try and find out? God didn’t inspire the writer to write this story of Jonah just so it could be interpreted any way we feel like, did He? Isn’t all Scripture God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? If that is the case, then why hasn’t the Church spoken out about every passage of Scripture, or at least on the Old Testament?
Further how does the Church leadership actually interpret the Scripture? Do they do serious scholarly work? (By the way this is the way many Protestants ministers do it, believe it or not, despite what Keating says. My pastor spends at least 40 hours a week preparing for the sermon on maybe 10 verses he is about to give on Sunday. He does nothing but meditate on the Scriptures he will be speaking about, doing serious research, reading commentaries from the great theologians that have gone before including the early church fathers, trying to fit the passage into the time period it was written to determine what was the actual intent, and praying over each sermon he gives.) Does the Magisterium go into a room and pray about it and come out with an answer? Do they sit around and debate for a few hours on what each one believes is correct and then vote, the Pope having the tie breaker? Do they hear a voice from God? Do they read what someone else has written and say, that seems about right, (which they seemed to have done in the case of most of what Augustine wrote)? Does anyone know? Does anyone have any authority to even ask these questions? This line of questions doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside about how Catholic doctrines are formed. Of course my warm fuzzy feelings don’t matter because the Church is infallible because it says it is, and I should just accept it and shut up . . .
As for the rest of the excerpt, I won’t go into the canon debate again. I think I’ve said my peace on that.
Grace, Peace and Truth
Thomas
P.S. I will attempt to address Dave’s question and continue our conversation soon.
Thomas,
It amazes me that you really think that St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius of Antioch and so many other Church Fathers can be blatantly wrong...but you can be positively correct.
Keating's argument is not circular for to be circular it would have to say that the Bible as an inspired book confirms that Jesus gave the Church authority but he doesn't make that claim. He says that the Church's authority can be understood strictly from a historical reading of the Bible. It is then that as intellectually honest individuals we say "okay, so this book, that has historical value, says that this man who claimed to be God founded a Church, so we should be able to find that Church". It is then that we begin historically looking for that Church in the writings and histories of that time. Once we find those we begin to follow that Church down through the ages and, low and behold, that Church begins to declare certain things as absolute and objective truths including; the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus Christ, the divine inspiration of Scripture, as well as the canon of Scripture, the necessity of the sacraments, most importantly baptism and the Eucharist, and on and on. So it becomes a historical validation. Have the things, historically, that this man Jesus said and preached come true and if so through what Church? That is why on this blog we insist on the reality of the Catholic Church being the Church Christ founded. You keep saying that the Church before Constantine was different then that Church found afterwards....prove it. I've read the writings of St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, and so forth...they were all distinctly Catholic, even going so far as to call themselves by that name. Did they have the cathedrals and basilicas of the Catholic Church today? Of course not, but that doesn't lesson the validity of the Catholic claim nor does it change the doctrines that were taught and believed by the Church in that age.
A circular argument validates against itself. As I have shown here Keating did not do that. Protestants must use a circular argument when validating their claim of the Bible's truthfulness and divine inspiration. If they don't just tell me how they don't...
St. Augustine nailed it on head with his comment you attempt to casually push aside. It is only through the Church that we even know that the Bible is divinely inspired.
Also, I found your comment above about interpreting Sacred Scripture to be interesting. So Protestant seminaries have a right to tell students what the rules are for interpretation? Sound like authority to me... Or are those rules simply subjective to the student's personal interpretation, I mean is it possible for the student to read a particular verse and say "no professor I don't agree with that rule of interpretation"? If the student cannot be correct when saying such a thing then I guess the professor (or seminary tradition) is infallibly correct on those particular matters of interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?
You really need to read more about the Catholic Church...within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church there is the Pontifical Biblical Commission. They have written multiple books on the interpretation of the Bible in the Church. I've provided a link below where you can order one in particular. I highly recommend doing so, it is very useful.
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church
Keep wrestling with the issues Thomas. Did you check out any of those other sites I recommend earlier today on other converts to Catholicism?
Have a blessed Sunday. You and your family remain in my prayers.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
How are you certain that what you believe is the truth? What makes you confident in the Roman Catholic Church?
God Bless
Posted by: Jeff at July 17, 2004 11:33 PMJeff,
1) I acknowledge that certain writings bear historical significance. The foremost of these being the books of the Old Testament and the writings of those that followed Jesus Christ. The collective books that make up the Bible are historically significant just as are the writings of various Greek philosophers and historians, the writings of different Jewish and Roman historians (not to mention those from other Eastern nations). The difference is that the books that make up the Bible as we know it today are found in abundance through the Western world from many different time periods and for the most part they are identical. So historically, they demand our attention.
2) My belief in Jesus Christ and His claims. I have objectively considered the claims of Jesus as found in the historical books that make up the Bible. The decision to believe in Him is an act of faith, but one reached by considering that in making such claims Jesus was either a madman or, as I believe, truly who He said He was. Again, this is simply a historical, objective understanding.
2) In discerning that this Jesus claimed that He would found a Church. This was His claim, not man's claim. It is the only thing that He claimed to establish in order to proclaim the "new covenant". Just as a reminder, He never claimed to be leaving humanity anything in writing to be the sole source of objective, infallible, religious truth. He did however claim to leave this "heavenly authority" with His Church. Again, a historical claim...He actually said these things.
3) Through the reading of the writings of those that followed Jesus I see that that Church becomes an organized establishment and is attested to by all those who (historically) wrote about this Church. This includes the Apostles and those who would continue in the establishing of this Church after they were gone.
4) Through the continual presence of that Church throughout history and its continual claim to possess that Christ given authority to declare what is true in matters of faith and morals. The historical lineage of the popes can be traced all the way back to St. Peter, just as the U.S. can trace our presidents back to Washington or how the other countries can historically trace back their leaders, even in empires of the past, like the Romans.
5) Through a comparitive analysis of the teachings of the Catholic Church today with the Catholic Church of history. Seeing in that analysis a continuation of faithful teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This analysis reveals that the two are comparatively identical and, in addition, reveal the continual development of doctrine without the substantial changing of those doctrines.
6) Through the "signs and wonders" that have accompanied that Church. The saints who bore the wounds of Christ in their very bodies (Padre Pio being the most recent saint to possess Christ's wounds), the incorruptibles (those whose bodies have not corrupted down through the ages), the Eucharistic miracles (miracles where the Body and Blood of Christ offered at the Holy Mass actually changed into physical flesh and blood and has remain such for centuries), and the multitude of healings and other miracles that have been scientifically proven to be true. In fact all of these have been tried and tested by scientists (often Atheists or members of other world religions who have no personal interest in the miracles being true).
7) The presence of the Church in the world today. The popes of the past century have withstood the threats of Communism, Nazism, Secularism, Contraception and Abortion, Materialism, and so forth. Read the writings of these great men and then tell me that they are not led by the Holy Spirit. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church has remained true to the Gospel in proclaiming the immorality of contraception and abortion, in defending the historical and spiritual value of Sacred Scripture, in warning humanity of the dangers of materialism and secularism, and in the continual call to holiness and imitation of Christ. They have been men worthy of being the head of Christ's Church on earth. I am filled with joy and thankfulness for the guidance the Church has received during such treacherous times from Pope John Paul II. Truly he has led us well and been a worthy successor of St. Peter.
These are my reasons for having total confidence in the Catholic Church.
Can you say the same for having confidence in the church you belong to?
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Please quote Scripture when proving a point and can you please address my prior post. It was a follow up from another section.
I will address your post above afterwards.
God Bless
Joe,
You stated, “It amazes me that you really think that St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius of Antioch and so many other Church Fathers can be blatantly wrong...but you can be positively correct.”
I base my faith on the writings of Scripture and the interpretation of that Scripture from various theologians down through the centuries. (Yet I do not allow that interpretation to govern what
I believe, just because they or the Church said it is correct. No I follow what the greats in the past have written, because it is the most reasonable explanation of Scripture based on sound hermeneutics. I bring this up in case you attempt to claim that I in fact somehow believe in the authority of Tradition.) What amazes me is that you do the exact same thing at least in regard to the Scriptures pertaining to the founding of the Church yet you won’t ultimately admit it. How is my reliance on the interpretation of the Protestant writers’ version of these passages different than your reliance on the interpretation of the Catholic writers’ version of these passages? Other than the fact that the Catholic writers wrote earlier, there is none. The fact remains that neither of them had any intimacy with Christ or the Apostles. Speaking from a strictly historical perspective, how did the above list of writers know exactly what the Scriptures meant in regard to the founding of the church? And how do you know this? How do you know that the church didn’t slowly evolve over time into the hierarchical system that it is today? How do you know that these early writers weren’t attempting to give a scriptural justification to what already existed? In other words interpreting scripture to suit their own needs. Why is it that you can rely on some of what the early fathers wrote, and disagree with other things they wrote, but I can’t? With all of these questions you make assumptions. Just like I do. I just assume the opposite. Why are my assumptions inferior and yours are not? Why is my reasoning circular here and yours is not? No you and I both swim in the same pool, we just make different assumptions based on our presupposed beliefs. I myself appeal to a through study of the Scripture for my interpretation of these historical passages on the foundation of the Church, based on reason, logic, history and other Scripture. You claim to do the same. My point right now is not to come to any conclusion on who is right, but to point out that Keatings’ and your reasons for the inspiration of Scripture are no more valid than mine or any other Protestant. However, as you rightly have stated, if you can’t prove that the early church father were correct on these passages then your entire house of cards falls. (Also I’m not even sure I have conceded that the early fathers did actually interpret these passages this way.)
You stated, “You keep saying that the Church before Constantine was different then that Church found afterwards....prove it.”
Why did Constantine have to intervene and call the Counsel of Nicaea, why didn’t the pope do so? What kind of power did Constantine have that the pope did not? Why does it appear that the bishops didn’t know which way to turn on the doctrine of the trinity, with half the bishops leaning one way and half leaning the other? Why wasn’t this critical doctrine firmly established by the magisterium when the first bishop introduced the original thought on Arianism and not left to fester until after it threatened to split the church apart? If this is an example of the church’s “leadership” established by Christ, they sure didn’t do a good job of it. No from the historical evidence it certainly looks like that there was no recognized central authoritative body governing the church at that time. Each bishop just believed what he felt was right based on the Gospel. That’s just one item from history. If I had time and the inclination I could probably come up with more.
You stated, “I've read the writings of St. Ignatius, St. Clement, St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, and so forth...they were all distinctly Catholic, even going so far as to call themselves by that name.”
And yet I probably could point out particular parts of their writings, which are far from being traditional Catholic teachings. By the way as you’ve been told many times “catholic” means universal, in other words they were calling themselves part of the universal church, ie part of the whole body of believers. Which is what I’ve stated is the proper interpretation of these scriptural passages since the beginning. I don’t know why you keep going down this road. Down through antiquity the Roman Catholic Church most of the time simply referred to itself as the church, it wasn’t until the Reformation when there was more than one choice that they began distinguishing themselves as the Catholic Church with a capital “C”.
“Also, I found your comment above about interpreting Sacred Scripture to be interesting. So Protestant seminaries have a right to tell students what the rules are for interpretation? Sound like authority to me... Or are those rules simply subjective to the student's personal interpretation, I mean is it possible for the student to read a particular verse and say "no professor I don't agree with that rule of interpretation"? If the student cannot be correct when saying such a thing then I guess the professor (or seminary tradition) is infallibly correct on those particular matters of interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?”
I am speaking from complete ignorance here, because as I’ve told you in the past I’m a layman, but I think it is safe to assume that these rules flow from reason and logic. For example the rule of letting Scripture interpret Scripture whenever possible, flows from the logical conclusion that truth doesn’t contradict itself. So if someone wanted to challenge this rule they would have to have a pretty sound reason for doing so or be laughed out of seminary. As for interpretations, any new or unique interpretation or rule of interpretation which is thrown out, is rigorously critiqued by theologians as a whole. Just as we are doing here and just as theologians have been doing centuries. The idea is left to sink or swim on its own merits. I like this idea much better than a mystical magisterium dictating to me what is and is not the proper interpretation of scripture.
By the way another thought just occurred to me, if the pope and the magisterium are infallible and this was generally agreed by the church as a whole down from Christ on, why was it necessary for Augustine and the others to make any apologetic of the faith? Why wasn’t the main focus of their writings to establish the infallibility of the magisterium of the then established Catholic Church and then just turn it over to the magisterium on the other doctrinal issues and let them work their magic?
I’d read the book you recommended, but you know if it doesn’t come from the magisterium itself, its just words on a piece of paper to me. ;)
By the way you never addressed my question on the Old Testament. How was it interpreted before the formation of the magisterium? How did the ancient Israelites know that the Old Testament books were inspired? How did they know which books were to be included in their Scripture without the magisterium to guide them? The priesthood never claimed to be infallible nor did they act like it, and if they were when did they cease to be? According to your and Keatings statement Scripture is worthless unless there is an infallible body to interpret it. Are you saying that everyone who was considered righteous after Moses just got lucky?
I haven’t been to the other websites as my time as been spent responding to you, but
I’ll try. If I’m “wrestling” with the issues of Catholicism, I hope that I am winning. J Iron sharpening iron you know. I will freely admit that I have been a bit naive that these issues are simple. I should have known better, they are far more complex than I originally thought, (it seems like this is always the case), but as I have said in the past, the more I dig into these issues the more I am firmly convinced based on scripture, history, reason and logic that I am right. However, I do agree with you that some Protestants (as I have done) have a tendency to dismiss the history of the early church as not important. By the way I know that you have been doing this for a while, and I know you are locked into the Catholic view, but I hope that I have at least made you work if only just a little, and think about things from a different perspective.
One last comment Romans 12:2 “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – His good, pleasing and perfect will.” Was this only written to the magisterium, or to the whole body of believers? If to the whole body, which I believe is a reasonable assumption, then it would be also reasonable to assume that this means passage also refers to knowing God’s will in matters such as interpretation of Scripture. But I’m sure that the magisterium does not interpret it like that.
Grace, Peace and Truth
Thomas
P.S. What does the term “brother separated” mean. If I am a practicing member of a recognized protestant denomination, am I a brother in Christ? Have I obtained salvation? Am I going to heaven/purgatory? As the analogy you have given, am I just swimming along and might make the goal without the Church/boat?
P.P.S I wrote this before I saw your last post. I'll address that hopefully soon, unless my wife kills me first.
Posted by: Thomas at July 18, 2004 5:27 PMJeff,
Not sure what point from your previous post you needed me to address. If you are trying to imply that I didn't show that the verses you were attempting to use to prove that Scripture was divinely inspired do in fact do that, then you are simply mistaken for, in truth, you never proved that they actually make such a claim. Besides, saying that Scripture says it is divinely inspired and that that makes it so is a circular argument. Again, the Koran and the Book of Mormon claim that they are divinely inspired. Again, the only Apostle to claim that he was divinely inspired was St. John and only in the book of Revelation.
As to asking me to quote Scripture I would simply ask in reference to what?
I have given you the answer to your question about how I can have confidence in the Catholic Church and know that it is the true Church.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Simply saying that I did not prove my point does not suffice. For each Scriptural reference I made to support the fact that the authors confess inspiration from God,please explain why I am wrong.
For example...when I quoted
1 Jn 1:3 simply says they wrote to make their joy complete not that everything they wrote was the inspired Word of God"
You insisted in a prior post that this has nothing to do with inspiration and that it was to make their joy complete. I replied...
"Again Joe, joy moved this author to write. Where does his joy come from? Could it be God himself? Peter in 1 Peter1:8 refers to this as INEXPRESSIBLE JOY. This joy obviously is from God almighty and therefore makes it divine. Since it did inspire John to write that makes it divine inspiration."
What about Peter saying that Paul writes with the wisdom given to him. Who gives wisdom and joy to men Joe? I believe God does. But if you don't believe me, look to the Scriptures...
""For God GIVES WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE and JOY to a man who is good in His sight;" (Ecclesiastes 2:26)"
Amazing things happen when you allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Now back to your post.
"Through a comparitive analysis of the teachings of the Catholic Church today with the Catholic Church of history. Seeing in that analysis a continuation of faithful teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Funny, I read on another post that no one can provide an example of where in the Bible that Christ taught to pray to saints. It was not a teaching of Christ about Marian doctrine. Nor was it a teaching of the apostles. Yet the RCC is faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The bottom line is the following...you read the Bible and believed the RCC to correct. You interpret the Bible to be in harmony with the RCC. I, on the other hand was bought up a Catholic, read the Bible and looked at the facts and came to the conclusion that the RCC is not in complete union with the Scriptures.
I am perfectly comfortable with my church, however I do not believe that believe my church to be infallible. There is no church that is infallible. RCC nor protestant. However the Scriptures are there to be our guide.
You want to mention Mormonism...try to debate with them. They choose to believe that Bible is not completely correct. They believe in other supplementary books. The only way they can support their beliefs is to discredit the Bible as being accurate let alone authoritative. It is not interpretation of the Bible that spurs their beliefs, it is the belief that the Bible is not 100% accurate. Therefore they go BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN. As for the Koran...you'd be surprised to learn that Muslims believe in 3 books. The Torah, The Injil(which is the gospel) and they of course believe in the Qu'ran. In the Qu'Ran it even acknowledges the Gospel as being true and even instructs readers of the Qu'ran to follow what the gospel teaches. You want to know the Muslim answer to this is? It is not interpretation, it is simply to say that the Bible is in a corrupt form. I don't want you to think that I believe Roman Catholics are not Christians. They are, they are part of the body of believers. The common problem between these two religions is that they go outside the Bible to validate their doctrine.
I left the Catholic Church because a lot of doctrines are validated, not by Scripture, but by external sources. If you believe that Bible is God's Word...why go beyond what is written. Do not go beyond what is written. That means if it is not written, do not go there. That is plain to see. What does it mean to you?
The Holy Scriptures claim authority, the authors claim to be inspired by God. I believe the Bible to be God's Word. I believe that God's Word is authoritative. I know I am comfortable having left the RCC and into the truth of Scripture.
God Bless
Posted by: Jeff at July 19, 2004 12:20 AMThomas,
Just to point out the obvious: the "greats" that you speak about through the centuries were all Catholic! You're saying you believe them because it's the most rational explanation, then you don't join the Church they insist is true. I think you're missing something here: There was no protestant church prior to the 1,500's.
Feel free to quote the early fathers, but don't take a sentence out of context and change its meaning to fit what you want to believe. Before you quote them, read the entire passage and make sure you are interested - remember they were the great defenders of the Catholic faith. Your rant on what "catholic" mean betrays your ignorance of the early Church fathers. There's no arguing what they believed, it is very clear in their writings. I ask you to take some time and read them, then come back and try to say they weren't Catholic in every sense of the word.
And please, please don't try and say "history" supports the protestant position. That's about the most ridiculous statement I've heard. Protestant pastors don't discuss history in church for a reason, a little knowledge of history and one ceases to be protestant (to lift a famous quote). Why? Because you have to reconcile your trust in the Protestant reformation with the truth of who Martin Luther was (even protestants recognize he was a heretic later in life) and the fact that there was a Christian Church for 1,500 years before Luther's heresy: why would God allow this if the Catholic Church was wrong? And how could Jesus promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against His Church if you argue that they did?
Just some things to think about, Thomas.
God bless,
Jay
Jay,
Just answer my questions.
As far as the "greats" as I have said I pick and choose what I agree with from them and what I don't. Just like you do. And then of course we have to interpret what they have said as well. And by the way I don't base my faith on Luther or what he necessarily taught any more than I base my faith on Augustine and what he taught. I base my faith on my understanding of whole picture. Did what Luther said make sence, in some areas yes, in some areas no. Did what Augustine say make sence, in some areas yes in some no. You see I am free to use my mind to determine what the Scriptures means from a rational, logical and historical prespective taking in all viewpoints and making a choice for myself instead of using it to defend the narrow view Catholic Church teaches, which may not be rational, logical or historical at all. Jay you came from the Protestant church and I assume that you have fairly significant background in it. Can you honestly say that the Catholic Church that exist today with its rituals, mysticism, veneration of Mary, its teachings on the Pope and the infallibility of the magisterium, praying to the dead etc. is the same one described in the Bible by Christ and the Apostles? If you say yes I think that you are serioulsy deluded. No the church of the Apostles was humble and wholesome. Something that Catholic church lacks in all aspects. Sometimes you just have to step back and look at the whole picture. I have done that, and can now honestly say that I have reviewed the Catholic faith and found it wanting.
Grace,Peace and Truth,
Thomas
Thomas,
(1) What is the definition of "sound hermeneutics"?
(
2) How do you know that it is sound or reliable for that matter?
(3) You stated above:
What amazes me is that you do the exact same thing at least in regard to the Scriptures pertaining to the founding of the Church yet you won't ultimately admit it. How is my reliance on the interpretation of the Protestant writers' version of these passages different than your reliance on the interpretation of the Catholic writers' version of these passages? Other than the fact that the Catholic writers wrote earlier, there is none.
First you admit that the Catholic writers preceded the Protestant writers correct? It least that is what you say above. That doesn't bother you at all? Second, those "Catholic writers" and those Catholic writers down through the ages have been in agreement whereas the Protestant writers substantially differed in their interpretation of things that had always been believed within the Church. A perfect example is the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ that Catholics receive at every Mass.
(4) You then state:
The fact remains that neither of them had any intimacy with Christ or the Apostles.
So what does "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" mean to Protestants? As Catholics, we believe that we have just as intimate a union with Christ as the Apostles in that we hear Him through His Word, Sacred Scripture, and that we consume Him into our very being through the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in accordance with what HE told us (John 6).
(5) You state:
Speaking from a strictly historical perspective, how did the above list of writers know exactly what the Scriptures meant in regard to the founding of the church?
First, the Church was already in existence before these writers. Second, you better hope they understood because the earliest canons of Scripture that we have came from these men, not to mention the earliest "historical" manuscripts. In reference to how I know this, read above where I listed the reasons for my belief and confidence in the Catholic Church.
(6) You state:
How do you know that the church didn't slowly evolve over time into the hierarchial system that it is today? How do you know that these early writers weren't attempting to give a scriptural justification to what already existed? In other words interpreting scripture to suit their own needs.
First, it did evolve and it had to as the Church expanded throughout the world. Yet that hierarchy has remained true to what the first hierarchy believed. If these early writers were attempting to use Scripture to justify their own needs then we are all in trouble because these men were the ones who interpreted to Greek and Latin the books written by the Old Testament and New Testament writers, they are also the ones who determined the canon of Sacred Scripture, yet we need not despair for archaeological finds have shown that they faithfully interpreted the various books of the Bible, unlike Martin Luther who added a word in the book of Romans to justify his believe in the idea of "salvation by faith alone."
(7) You state:
Why is it that you can rely on some of what the early fathers wrote, and disagree with other things they wrote, but I can't?
Brother quote away! I've been waiting for this. So you have found the proofs for your arguments in the Early Church Fathers? Wouldn't that be relying on Tradition? What writer have I agreed with and then disagreed with? Please be specific.
(8) You state:
With all of these questions you make assumptions. Just like I do. I just assume the opposite. Why are my assumptions inferior and yours are not?
First, I don't see a lot of assumptions above so please explain. I know that you make assumptions because you have told me so. You assume the Bible is the truth, you assume that it is divinely inspired. You just call it faith. Yet I believe our faith needs to be in the person of Jesus Christ and then in his historical claims. But Jesus never claimed to commission His Apostles to write and He most certainly never said that He would "divinely inspire" those Apostles in their writings, yet He did claim to found a Church and to give it divine authority. Again, I'm not making any assumptions.
(9) You state:
Why is my reasoning circular here and yours is not?
You, unlike Jeff, haven't even given us your reasoning as to how you know the Bible is true and divinely inspired other than your initial argument which I proved false or at least wanting. In the end, you resorted to it was true because you believed it to be so, calling it faith. Jeff's argument is circular because he attempts to use the Bible as proof for its own truthfulness. As an attorney you know that Jeff is attempting to use a self-confirming argument which simply isn't valid, not to mention that he hasn't done it yet. I gave my reasons for believe in the Church's authority. My thought is logical, historical, and objective.
(9)You state:
I myself appeal to a thorough study of the Scripture for my interpretation of these historical passages on the foundation of the Church, based on reason, logic, history, and other Scripture. You claim to do the same. My point right now is not to come to any conclusion on who is right, but to point out that Keating's and your reasons for the inspiration of Scripture are no more valid than mine or any other Protestant.
How so? First, your only proof for the validity of the truth of Scripture has been either the very things Keating pointed out about the Protestant arguments or your own personal belief in it, which is subjectivism. Whereas Keating and I have said that we know that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired because, as St. Augustine said, the Church tells us so. My proofs for my belief in the Church are listed above.
(10) You state:
However you rightly have stated, if you can't prove that the early church fathers were were correct on these passages then your entire house of cards falls. (Also I'm not even sure I have conceded that the early fathers did actually interpret these passages this way.)
Then do so, Thomas. You owe it nobody but yourself. As we have said hundreds of times, READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS.
(11) You state:
Why did Constantine have to intervene and call the Council of Nicaea, why didn't the pope do so? What kind of power did Constantine have that the pope did not? Why does it appear that the bishops didn't know which way to turn on the doctrine of the trinity, with half the bishops leaning one way and half leaning the other? Why wasn't this critical doctrine firmly established by the magisterium when the first bishop introduced the original thought on Arianism and not left to fester until after it threatened to split the church apart? If this is an example of the church's "leadership" established by Christ, they sure didn't do a good job of it. No from the historical evidence it certainly looks like that there was no recognized central authoritative body governing the church at that time.
First, I could take the route that if the Trinity was such a "critical doctrine", as we all believe, then why didn't the Apostles clarify this or Christ for that matter? But...I won't go that route, instead I'll take the historical. Two big issues at that time were transportation and communication, believe it or not. Constantine was concerned, politically speaking, that the Arian controversy would destroy the unity of the Roman Empire. The pope at that time was unable to travel to Nicea, but he did send an official representative, a Spanish bishop by the name of Hosius, who was the appointed chairman of the Council of Nicaea. St. Athanasius was one of the prime players arguing the Catholic perspective and Arius argued the Arian perspective. It was Athanasius who pointed out that from both the writings of the Apostles and from philosophical reasoning that Christ was equal to God the Father and therefore co-equal and co-eternal. The Church agreed and the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the Creed professed by the Catholic Church to this day. Remember the papally appointed bishop was the chairman of this council, not Constantine. Keep in mind that there was division even in the Church during the time of the Apostles over circumcision.
(12) You state:
By the way as you've been told many times "catholic" means universal, in other words they were calling themselves part of the universal church, ie part of the whole body of believers. Which is what I've stated is the proper interpretation of these scriptural passages since the beginning. I don't know why you keep going down this road.
We agree that it means universal, as does the Roman Catholic Church to this day. The reason we keep going down this road is because those believers shared the beliefs of the Catholic Church today, they received the Body and Blood of Christ...really, they believe Mary was the Ever-Virgin, they believed in the authority of the magisterium, and so forth.
(13) You state:
By the way another thought just occurred to me, if the pope and the magisterium are infallible and this was generally agreed by the Church as a whole down from Christ on, why was it necessary for Augustine and the others to make any apologetic of the faith? Why wasn't the main focus of their writings to establish the infallibility of the magisterium of the then established Catholic Church and then just turn it over to the magisterium on the other doctrinal issues and let them work their magic.
What a disappointing statement from you Thomas. I know you are just a "layman" but come on. First, look at what we are doing here on this blog. All these things are taught by the Magisterium yet are you willing to go to the Vatican website or buy the writings of Pope John Paul II or the Church? As Catholics we must defend and promulgate our faith...just as Protestants do theirs. Second, if the authority of the Christ and the Apostles is so compelling why did people oppose them and attempt to teach things contrary to the Gospel they taught? Didn't Jesus Christ, St. Peter, St. Paul, etc. all warn us that this would happen? By the way, the Early Church Fathers did attest to the authority of the Magisterium, but that didn't let them off the hook in defending the faith, just as it doesn't let us off today. They, unlike us, were also bishops and thus part of that Magisterium.
(14) You state:
I'd read the book you recommended, but you know if it doesn't come from the magisterium itself, its just words on a piece of paper to me. ;)
Well you're in luck....because the Pontifical Biblical Commission is a part of the Magisterium. The entire first section is the Pope's endorsing of it. Thomas, as I've said before, please take the time to learn what the Catholic Church really believes.
(15) By the way you never addressed my question on the Old Testament. How was it interpreted before the formation of the magisterium? How did the ancient Israelites know that the Old Testament books were inspired? How did they know which books were to be included in their Scripture without the Magisterium to guide them? The priesthood neve claimed to be infallible not did they act like it, and if they were when did they cease to be?
First, we are talking about two religions here. Second, the Jews did believe that the Torah, the law and the writings of the Prophets were divinely inspired yet how did this apply to the early Christians? Most certainly the early Jewish converts would have accepted this at face value but what about the Gentiles? They didn't believe in Jewish Scripture, prior to their conversions. YET WHEN THE CHURCH TOLD THEM THAT THE JEWISH OLD TESTAMENT WAS DIVINELY INSPIRED THEY BELIEVED. Third, as far as the Christian Bible goes it was the Church that decided what books would be included in the Old Testament. Fourth, the Jewish scribes and Pharisees did claim authority, that even Jesus recognized (Matthew 23:1-3).
Thomas, this isn't about winning or losing...this is about truth. This is about finding the Church that Christ established so as to experience His grace in its fullness. You have been of great value to us. You have made us dig and learn, and that's a good thing. We, like you, are also "mere laymen". Yet we stand on a sound foundation. You can obviously tell that Jay and Dave aren't men who would have converted to Catholicism just because a "spouse did" (in fact neither of them converted, or are converting, for that reason). They are scholarly and seekers of truth, like you and like me. They have sought and they have found. They were courageous enough to read the writings of the Church, to study history, and pray about this. And now here they are, former Protestants, defending the Catholic Faith.
To summarize our initial discussion on the question of authority. I have now given the criteria for my belief in the authority of the Catholic Church who compels me to accept the Gospel and all of Sacred Scripture as divinely inspired. I believe that your proof was that you are simply taking Scripture as true on faith. Am I right in this? If not, let me know. If so, think about this, pray about this.
Your brother in Christ,
Joe
Joe,
You say that my argument is circular. I am starting to think that you scroll to fast when reading posts. I'll quote myself.
"The bottom line is the following...you read the Bible and believed the RCC to correct. You interpret the Bible to be in harmony with the RCC. I, on the other hand was bought up a Catholic, read the Bible and looked at the facts and came to the conclusion that the RCC is not in complete union with the Scriptures."
I like you, factored in history and archeological evidence and of course chose to believe God on who He says He is.
I read the Bible. I unlike you came away with the belief that the Bible is authoritative on matters regarding church conduct. When I read the Bible and observed the RCC(the church I left) I realized and believed that the RCC was incorrect. You believe the RCC to be true...and I don't. So like I said in a previous post. When you asked me how do I know that Scripture is the inspired word of God, I replied with a question. That question was how do you know that the RCC is the inspired way of God?
I then said, when it all boils down, you are faced with the same situation as I am. I chose what I believed to be truth...and you chose what you believe to be true. It's funny, when I explain...I am being circular. I read Scripture and saw that the RCC is not in harmony with Scripture...you read the Scriptures and believed that it is. So questioning how can I know Scripture is inspired was a waste of time because at some point we had to believe Scripture was inspired in order to choose our beliefs.
Now you had also asked if the authors in the Bible claimed inspiration. I pointed out they did. You have yet to address my points and scriptural references other than to say that they are wrong. Maybe you have to much on your plate with Thomas. I understand...these posts do take some time....so whenever you have a chance...
God Bless
Posted by: Jeff at July 19, 2004 5:45 PMJoe,
Sorry Jeff I keep getting in your way here but . . . Let me summarize your argument: The Catholic Church is inspired and infallible, because a bunch of men living 200-300 years after the Bible was written, who had no PERSONAL knowledge of Christ and the Apostles or the culture or times in which they lived, interpreted certain very unclear passages out of the historical Bible and said it was. (Assuming that this is the case. As I don’t have the time to research it right now I will take your word for it.) They themselves are not believed to be infallible nor are their writings, and how they just knew this remains unanswered. The Bible is inspired because that Catholic Church said it was. You don’t see the assumptions you are making?
As a Protestant am I a brother in Christ? Have I achieved salvation? Am I going to Heaven/Purgatory?
Its a yes or no answer.
Grace, Peace and Truth
Thomas
Thomas,
You have completely misunderstood why I am confident that the Catholic Church is the Church given divine authority on matters of faith and morals, thus having the authority to (1)determine the canon of Sacred Scripture and (2) to call those books divinely inspired, even though the authors themselves never made such a claim. I am copying and pasting my thought process again, since you and Jeff continue to fail to acknowledge it.
1) I acknowledge that certain writings bear historical significance. The foremost of these being the books of the Old Testament and the writings of those that followed Jesus Christ. The collective books that make up the Bible are historically significant just as are the writings of various Greek philosophers and historians, the writings of different Jewish and Roman historians (not to mention those from other Eastern nations). The difference is that the books that make up the Bible as we know it today are found in abundance through the Western world from many different time periods and for the most part they are identical. So historically, they demand our attention.2) My belief in Jesus Christ and His claims. I have objectively considered the claims of Jesus as found in the historical books that make up the Bible. The decision to believe in Him is an act of faith, but one reached by considering that in making such claims Jesus was either a madman or, as I believe, truly who He said He was. Again, this is simply a historical, objective understanding.
3) In discerning that this Jesus claimed that He would found a Church. This was His claim, not man's claim. It is the only thing that He claimed to establish in order to proclaim the "new covenant". Just as a reminder, He never claimed to be leaving humanity anything in writing to be the sole source of objective, infallible, religious truth. He did however claim to leave this "heavenly authority" with His Church. Again, a historical claim...He actually said these things.
4) Through the reading of the writings of those that followed Jesus I see that that Church becomes an organized establishment and is attested to by all those who (historically) wrote about this Church. This includes the Apostles and those who would continue in the establishing of this Church after they were gone.
5) Through the continual presence of that Church throughout history and its continual claim to possess that Christ given authority to declare what is true in matters of faith and morals. The historical lineage of the popes can be traced all the way back to St. Peter, just as the U.S. can trace our presidents back to Washington or how the other countries can historically trace back their leaders, even in empires of the past, like the Romans.
6) Through a comparitive analysis of the teachings of the Catholic Church today with the Catholic Church of history. Seeing in that analysis a continuation of faithful teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This analysis reveals that the two are comparatively identical and, in addition, reveal the continual development of doctrine without the substantial changing of those doctrines.
7) Through the "signs and wonders" that have accompanied that Church. The saints who bore the wounds of Christ in their very bodies (Padre Pio being the most recent saint to possess Christ's wounds), the incorruptibles (those whose bodies have not corrupted down through the ages), the Eucharistic miracles (miracles where the Body and Blood of Christ offered at the Holy Mass actually changed into physical flesh and blood and has remain such for centuries), and the multitude of healings and other miracles that have been scientifically proven to be true. In fact all of these have been tried and tested by scientists (often Atheists or members of other world religions who have no personal interest in the miracles being true).
8) The presence of the Church in the world today. The popes of the past century have withstood the threats of Communism, Nazism, Secularism, Contraception and Abortion, Materialism, and so forth. Read the writings of these great men and then tell me that they are not led by the Holy Spirit. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church has remained true to the Gospel in proclaiming the immorality of contraception and abortion, in defending the historical and spiritual value of Sacred Scripture, in warning humanity of the dangers of materialism and secularism, and in the continual call to holiness and imitation of Christ. They have been men worthy of being the head of Christ's Church on earth. I am filled with joy and thankfulness for the guidance the Church has received during such treacherous times from Pope John Paul II. Truly he has led us well and been a worthy successor of St. Peter.
Now am I to assume that I summarized your basis of faith in Sacred Scripture on the criteria I listed previously correctly? You believe the Bible to be true by faith alone, not because you have any logical, historical, or objective proof?
Historically we all agree that it was written, even that it was written by the very men that claimed to write those books. Yet we have also shown that with the exception of St. John in Revelation, none of the authors of the New Testament claim divine inspiration in writing their books.
Thomas, you are a separated brother in Christ as we've discussed above. Salvation is our prize, we race toward it as St. Paul (1 Cor 9:24-27; Phil 2:12-13) and St. James (James 1:12) confirmed.
We have written on the Catholic Church's teaching in reference to those outside the Catholic Church.
Outside the Church There Is No Salvation
I have systematically answered your objections and your questions. It is now up to you to decide what to do next. Regardless, know that I am praying for you both.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Points 1 and 2 I agree with. No problem there. You looked at the data, analyzed that and took that into consideration when reading the Bible.
I also looked at the data, analyzed and read the Bible.
Now for point 3.
"3) In discerning that this Jesus claimed that He would found a Church. This was His claim, not man's claim. It is the only thing that He claimed to establish in order to proclaim the "new covenant". Just as a reminder, He never claimed to be leaving humanity anything in writing to be the sole source of objective, infallible, religious truth. He did however claim to leave this "heavenly authority" with His Church. Again, a historical claim...He actually said these things."
Again you interpret that Jesus claimed to leave heavenly authority on earth in the RCC. I interpret that Jesus left His teachings for us and that church is to spread His teachings. Thereby bringing the Glory of God on Earth.
"Through the reading of the writings of those that followed Jesus I see that that Church becomes an organized establishment and is attested to by all those who (historically) wrote about this Church. This includes the Apostles and those who would continue in the establishing of this Church after they were gone."
I have read what the Apostles have wrote, and yes I have read what the early church fathers wrote. The apostles according to what I have read, must have ommitted a lot of Roman Catholic practices. Because there are sure a lot of those teachings not present. Paul and Peter do count for Apostles...am I correct? What about Matthew? Because when I read their writings...they definitely are not Roman Catholic. This is one of the reasons I left the RCC.
As for the writings by the early church Fathers(i.e. St. Jerome, Augustine..)and readings of the early church(post biblical), I found various different views on items. Example, the Eucharist or Marian Doctrine or which books are inspired. We can go into these topics if you would like.
"Through the continual presence of that Church throughout history and its continual claim to possess that Christ given authority to declare what is true in matters of faith and morals. The historical lineage of the popes can be traced all the way back to St. Peter, just as the U.S. can trace our presidents back to Washington or how the other countries can historically trace back their leaders, even in empires of the past, like the Romans."
I have read and analyzed and I find that history does not support the papacy or the claim to apostolic succession. We can discuss this in detail if you would like.
"Through a comparitive analysis of the teachings of the Catholic Church today with the Catholic Church of history. Seeing in that analysis a continuation of faithful teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This analysis reveals that the two are comparatively identical and, in addition, reveal the continual development of doctrine without the substantial changing of those doctrines."
Once again, I read the Bible and I looked at the RCC. You believe that the RCC is faithful to the Gospel of Christ...I on the other hand see contradiction and new inventions.
I also see substantial changes of the doctrine of Christ.
As for point 7. From what I read in the Bible...Christ suffered for us. I don't believe that God would have an individual suffer in the same manner. Once God completes a work...it is finished. However, I have seen paralytics healed, I have witnessed 2 people who do not speak the same language able to communicate and understand each other completely.
"The presence of the Church in the world today. The popes of the past century have withstood the threats of Communism, Nazism, Secularism, Contraception and Abortion, Materialism, and so forth. Read the writings of these great men and then tell me that they are not led by the Holy Spirit."
Don't get me wrong...I never said that popes do not love Christ. Just as I know a lot of Catholics who truly love Christ.
"The teaching authority of the Catholic Church has remained true to the Gospel in proclaiming the immorality of contraception and abortion, in defending the historical and spiritual value of Sacred Scripture, in warning humanity of the dangers of materialism and secularism, and in the continual call to holiness and imitation of Christ"
Once again you believe the interpretation of the RCC to be correct. I on the other hand do not.
I have taken all the evidence I have read and compared it to Scripture and I have found that all things must measure up to the Bible. You have taken all things considered and arrived at the conclusion that the RCC is the way. I disagree. However, ultimately it all comes down to the fact that you believe the Bible...in addition to history and evidence, supports the RCC. I, on the other hand looked at all the facts and most importantly the Bible and believe that Scripture is authoritative. If you want to go into detail on how I came to the conclusion...fine. We can discuss history, linguistics..whatever you'd like to discuss. But for now, I am showing that you arrived to the conclusion that the RCC is correct because mainly you believe it agrees with the Bible. At least I hope that is the case.
GOd Bless
Joe,
One more thing...
"Yet we have also shown that with the exception of St. John in Revelation, none of the authors of the New Testament claim divine inspiration in writing their books. "
How have you shown this?
You have yet to address this...
"All of these books in some way shape or form confess testifying about Jesus.
My friend, they were inspired by Jesus to write. How can you deny this?
"Luke 1:3 simply says that it seemed good to him that he write the Gospel down not that he had been inspired to write down the divine Word of God."
What was it that made the author feel that it was good to write? What did he investigate? It was the accounts of Christ and His teachings. Which after further investigation moved the author to write. God inspired this author to write.
"1 Jn 1:3 simply says they wrote to make their joy complete not that everything they wrote was the inspired Word of God"
Again Joe, joy moved this author to write. Where does his joy come from? Could it be God himself? Peter in 1 Peter1:8 refers to this as INEXPRESSIBLE JOY. This joy obviously is from God almighty and therefore makes it divine. Since it did inspire John to write that makes it divine inspiration.
""2 Pet 3:15 says, in truth, "according to the wisdom given him". You must be using the New International Version of the Bible. This sentence in the Greek does not contain the word "Oeou" or any other form of this word which is translated "God". In the King James, the Rheims, the New American Standard, the New American, the Amplified, and the New Revised Standard the assumption isn't made. Therefore this verse is simply saying that Paul wrote with wisdom but it does not make the claim that Paul was writing the divinely inspired Word of God.""
Again...who gave Paul his wisdom? Lets look at the facts. Paul refers to himself as a slave to Christ. Paul is teaching about Christ. Paul testifies about Christ. Now, who gave Paul this wisdom? God himself. If you want to say I am wrong for believing God to provide men with wisdom....so be it.
So once again with a resounding yes, yes the authors of the Bible clearly show that their inspiration to write was from the God, Christ or the Spirit.
"For God GIVES WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE and JOY to a man who is good in His sight;" (Ecclesiastes 2:26)
The only way that the authors confess to being inspired by God is not clear is if you do not believe that God gives men their wisdom, joy, and that God is good.
As for your last question...once again, look at the previous answer.
Be blessed"
God Bless
Jeff,
What is the difference between testifying to something and claiming to be divinely inspired, in such a way that it is God speaking through you?
In Christ,
Joe
Jeff,
Your comments are very confusing to me. You appear to be saying that anytime someone feels joy about Jesus and then writes while under that joy, their writing is divinely inspired. Am I misinterpreting you? If so, how?
To put a finer point on it, how do you know that the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Apocrypha, and pseudo-Gospels such as Thomas, Wisdom, Mary Magdalene, and Barnabas are NOT divinely inspired? What is the test?
I think I remember asking you this question a long time ago in another post, but I do not think you ever answered me. This is an awfully critical point.
In Christ,
Dave
Joe,
The word inspire according to the Merriam Webster dictionary online
1. to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural
Did God move these men to write. Whether it was by the joy,wisdom or God's goodness, God did move them to write.
It is a move of God regardless. When testifying about God's goodness, God's goodness moves you to testify. God inspires men and children everyday. God influenced the authors to write. To testify about God the individual must be influenced, moved or guided by God to do so. The writers of the NT most definitely were influenced, moved and guided by the Lord and they show this in their writings.
God Bless
God Bless
Posted by: Jeff at July 19, 2004 11:43 PMJeff,
So what does to testify to something mean? Because right now the point of your above argument was that the authors of the New Testament testified to Jesus, a point on which we both agree. So again, what does "to testify to something mean?"
Second, you gave me the dictionary definition of inspiration but what I am really looking for is how "you" or "your church" would define divine inspiration in reference to the writing of Sacred Scripture. How did it actually work?
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
"Second, you gave me the dictionary definition of inspiration but what I am really looking for is how "you" or "your church" would define divine inspiration in reference to the writing of Sacred Scripture. How did it actually work?"
Rather simple Joe. God moved, guided and influenced these men to write and testify. Jesus taught these men and even sent the Holy Spirit to GUIDE them. Simply put, this is God's work being done...so it is divine. God moved and influenced them. Thus, making it divine inspiration.
God Bless
How do you know that God "moved, guided and influenced" the writers of these specific books and no others, Jeff?
God bless,
Jay
Joe,
I am starting to repeat myself. I will summarize real quickly for you.
""For God GIVES WISDOM and KNOWLEDGE and JOY to a man who is good in His sight;" (Ecclesiastes 2:26)
The only way that the authors confess to being inspired by God is not clear is if you do not believe that God gives men their wisdom, joy, and that God is good."
God used these very things to move and guide these men to write. It is that simple.
God Bless
Jeff,
You can't prove the Bible is inspired by using the Bible. The only thing that you might be able to prove is that the authors THOUGHT that they were inspired.
Grace, Peace and Truth
Thomas
Thomas,
I am aware of this...I was merely answering Joe's question.
"Do the New Testament authors claim to be writing under divine inspiration?"
Indirectly they do claim inspiration.
God Bless
Thomas,
In answer to your question above, we cannot say whether you are going to Heaven or Hell. St. Paul tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. I think any good Catholic would advise you likewise. The author of Hebrews in Chapter 6 very clearly states that anyone who has tasted the gift of Christ but fails to produce fruit will be burned. Jesus Himself indicated as much in the parable of the sower and the seed. Your eternal destiny was given potential by Christ's sacrifice. Whether you take advantage of the sacrifice will depend on whether or not you respond as He commands. Only the rest of your life will tell us that.
As to separated brethren, Joe's post has already answered that.
In Christ,
Dave
Joe,
I hear what your not saying.
Let me ask you a couple more questions:
You know what I believe.
In the year 1599 AD would I have been branded a "heretic" and doomed to spend eternity in hell or a "brother separated" with the possibility however slight to go the heaven, by the Church for my beliefs?
And
Is not the judgment of someone's immortal soul on what they believe a matter of faith and morals?
Grace, Peace and Truth
Thomas
Thomas,
First, there is a big difference between now and 1599 A.D. In 1599 A.D. you would have been a Catholic who had abandoned your Catholic Faith to follow a radical group that had broken away from the Catholic Church. At that time anyone who abandoned the true Church of Christ was considered "anathema" or "cut-off", meaning cut off from Christ's Church. It did not however mean condemnation to hell. Today we deal with a totally different situation. You were born Protestant, you never made the choice to abandon the Catholic Church. The reality is that baptism incorporates you into the Body of Christ, but by not partaking in the other sacraments you do not experience that complete unity with Christ or His Church. Can you make it to heaven? Of course, but there is an obligation on you now for you have inquired and must now seek out the full truth of the matter. That's why I continually challenge you to just hear what the Church has to say by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other documents from the Magisterium, by listening to the multitude of other converts to Catholicism, and by studying the Early Church Fathers.
Secondly, the Church is not here to judge individual human beings. Eternal judgement is not a matter of faith and/or morals. Telling someone how they are to live and what they should believe is entirely different then telling them where they are going for all eternity.
In Christ,
Joe
Just to add to that, Thomas, note that the Church (to my knowledge) has never proclaimed that any particular person is in Hell.
In Christ,
Dave
Joe,
From the 1500's up until Vatican II, I would have been anathema, so your argument of being born in the Protestant church does not hold water. During this time had I not repented and rejoined the Catholic Church regardless of whether I had made reasonable inquiries, I would have been cut off from it, and as you say there is no salvation outside the Church. Doesn't the fact that the Church has changed its stance on this issue bother you? Doesn't it appear that the Church has changed this perception to appease Protestants? Isn't this a matter of faith and morals?
Grace, Peace and Truth
Thomas
Joe,
Also Protestants, at least I myself look and believe even less like the Church than did Luther. We are even more radical Protestants than he was. If the church doesn't change. why is it that I could be a heretic and anathema only 50 years ago but not now?
Grace, Peace and Truth
Thomas
Yes Thomas I know... I don't know if you are saying this because you are proud of it or to make some point. I wonder what Luther would say?
I think a lot of what you have said stems from your lack of understanding of the Catholic Faith. The word "anathema" does not mean that the Church did not recognize the validity of the baptism received by those Protestants.
The Church has refined its language to encourage greater potential for ecumenical dialogue. Do you view this as a bad move? Do you think it is bad for Catholics to discuss matters of faith and morals with Protestants? Again, the Catholic Church never said that anyone was damned to hell.
By the way you are tied to the Catholic Church through your baptism. You are still "cut-off" today, in that you are not in full union with the Catholic Church. All salvation comes through the Church through baptism, therefore you, being baptized, might be saved. Yet to experience that full union one must be Catholic. For it is in the Eucharist that we experience Christ in a radical way unknown to Protestants through the receiving of Christ - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - into our very beings. This is the unity he spoke of in John 17.
The good news is that you are inquiring so you still may experience that full union with Christ and His Church. So, I extend the invitation..."Come and see."
Thomas I simply want you to share our "joy", our "life" in Christ. As I've said before, this isn't about who is wrong and who is right...it is about truth.
In Christ,
Joe
