A kindly reader e-mailed me a link to
THIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
It’s an interview with Ben Witherington about a new book he has out critiquing various schools of Evangelical theology, such as Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Dispensationalism, and Pentecostalism.
The central point of the book is that these theological schools tend to go wrong exegetically when it comes to the things that are most distinctive of them. For example,
- Calvinism is at its exegetical worst when arguing for things like perseverance of the saints
- Wesleyanism is at its worst when arguing for arguing that sanctification is a second definite work of grace.
- Dispensationalism is at its worst when arguing for a pre-tribulational rapture.
- Pentecostalism is at its worst when arguing that all Christians need to speak in tongues and that spirit baptism is a second definite work of grace.
Ben is dealing with a phenomenon that struck me back when I was an Evangelical: The various Evangelical schools of thought are vulnerable exegetically because they attempt to over-systematize Scripture. They treat it as if statements in Scripture were axioms of systematic theology that just need to be strung together in the right order to produce an overall systematic theology.
But that’s not what Scripture is. Not remotely. And if you try to handle the text in that manner you will inevitably force your own system onto the text of Scripture instead of deriving your system from Scripture.
A fundamental problem I found toward the end of my time as an Evangelical was that the different Evangelical theologies just didn’t "stick close enough" to the text exegetically. They were always trying to systematize aspects of it that reflected a much messier reality.
Ben deserves a lot of credit for pointing this out. It’s a gutsy move. I love the part of the interview where this comes up:
[N]ow that you have gone public in this book
with a critique of the key teachings of Calvinist, dispensational,
Arminian, and Pentecostal theologies, do you plan to have any friends
left?I’m obviously a naive person. I’m going to give some lectures in
Abilene next week on "Dispensing with Dispensationalism." This is going
into dispensational territory, as you know. If you hear of my
martyrdom, write a nice obituary.
I’ve corresponded with Ben before (back during the St. James ossuary business), and he was a real nice guy. I may contact him and express my appreciation for the theme of his new book (which I plan on getting) and wish him luck.
I wouldn’t want such a contact to come across in a triumphalistic sense, though I can imagine the topic coming up of how well Catholicism squares with Scripture exegetically. One might ask: Doesn’t Catholicism have its own system that departs from Scripture in the same way that the different Evangelical theologies do?
It certainly has a system that goes beyond Scripture in that it also appeals to Tradition for the data with which it does theology. This is not a problem for Catholics in the way it is for Protestants, though. If you have the idea of sola scriptura as one of your founding theological principles and you don’t give Tradition a normative role then you’ve got to derive your system from Scripture alone.
That’s when you run into problems, because there are many questions that Christians need answers to (e.g., "Who is it okay to baptize and just how do you administer baptism?") that aren’t answered in Scripture. Scripture thus points beyond itself to Tradition for these answers. In fact, Scripture itself is simply the written component of Tradition.
Without the extra-scriptural complement of Tradition, Scripture does not contain enough data to provide confident answers to all the questions that need confident answering (such as the ones mentioned above), and so one attempting to operate from the perspective of sola scriptura will inevitably have to propose some kind of system that can’t be fully grounded in Scripture in order to answer those questions.
But if you reject the premise of sola scriptura and allow Tradition to fill in the missing pieces, you end up with enough data to build systematic theology–even if the result is a system that must, by definition, go beyond Scripture in the data it treats as normative.
There also are places where elements from Tradition exist in exegetical tension with elements in Scripture (i.e., where the two don’t at first blush seem to square), but then this phenomenon exists within Scripture itself, as witnessed by the numerous passages that are proposed as "biblical contraditions" and such. Just as it is the job of the exegete to show possible harmonizations of these alleged discrepancies between different passages of Scripture, it is the job of theologians and exegetes to show possible harmonizations of alleged discrepancies between Scripture and Tradition.
Tradition (including Scripture as its written component) is just a bigger dataset, but the same kinds of issues arise. The difference is that Tradition is a large enough dataset to provide for the needs of systematic theology whereas Scripture apart from Tradition is not.
As an Evangelical, Ben might not agree to all that, but his new book suggests that he’s thinking along the right lines, and the interview itself shows that he’s got significant insight into the nature of the problem.
Since I’m stuck at home being sick, check out this fun little letter from Ephrem of Syria! Sounds like some people thought better of the living chat than the dead written word….
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ephraim1_1_hypatius1.htm
Behold, I am writing willingly something that I did not wish to write. For I did not wish that a letter should pass between us, since it cannot ask or be asked questions; but I had wished that there might pass between us a discourse from mouth to ear, asking and being asked questions… the free tongue is the likeness of the free mind. For the Deity gave us Speech that is free like Itself, in order that free Speech might serve our independent Freewill. And by Speech, too, we are the likeness of the Giver of it, [Ov. p. 22.] inasmuch as by means of it we have impulse and thought for good things; and not only for good things, but we learn also of God, the fountain of good things, by means of Speech (which is) a gift from Him. For by means of this (faculty) which is like God we are clothed with the likeness of God.
I have to say I like this a lot. I love literature, but we tend to forget how much the ancient world ran on oral literature and learning from living people, from mouth to ear. Even now, there are a great many things that people do and know and pass along which are seldom written down. Tradition is part of that.
Jimmy,
Is Mr. Witherington Lutheran? I only ask because I notice Lutheranism isn’t among those listed.
I don’t believe so. He teaches at a Wesleyan seminary.
Interesting. And I think it makes his book even more courageous. Thanks Jimmy.
This raises a question I’ve wondered about, namely just what is Arminian theology? I know it’s a type of evangelical theology most closely associated with the Methodists but beyond that I’m clueless. How is it different from other evangelical theologies?
Thanks,
arthur
“Without the extra-scriptural complement of Tradition, Scripture does not contain enough data to provide confident answers to all the questions that need confident answering”.
Well put, Jimmy.
In retrospect, what was amazing about my belief system as a Protestant was how much of it I simply had to fill in or make up on my own. I wasn’t aware of it, and wouldn’t have put it that way at the time, but it was true.
It also becomes very easy to let another fill in the gaps for you, say, a teacher with a strong personality.
At end of the CT article John Chrysostom is mentioned. Didn’t he also state the supremacy of the Pope?
Danger, Will Robinson!
A must-read blog entry from Jimmy Akin…
[Evangelicals] treat it as if statements in Scripture were axioms of systematic theology that just need to be strung together in the right order to produce an overall systematic theology.
But that’s not w…
“At end of the CT article John Chrysostom is mentioned. Didn’t he also state the supremacy of the Pope?”–from Dean.
Yes, he did:
“He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, “If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep” (Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, homily 88). Later in the same homily, John Chrysostom observes that Jesus “appointed” Peter “teacher of the world.”
Chrysostom is also considered the Doctor of the Eucharist. From what I have read of Chrysostom he seems awefully Catholic, I hope more Evangelicals read him.
back during the St. James ossuary business
5 dollars I’ll never get back…
“I have to say I like this a lot. I love literature, but we tend to forget how much the ancient world ran on oral literature and learning from living people, from mouth to ear. Even now, there are a great many things that people do and know and pass along which are seldom written down. Tradition is part of that.”
Right, and not only that, but the main purpose of written texts themselves was to be read out loud. Silent reading to oneself took a while to become a dominant reading practice. There’s a great and famous passage from St. Augustine on St. Ambrose where he remarks on how odd it was for his fellow saint to be reading silently, and it’s just one of many from the time. So even here there was a blurring between writing and speaking.
When someone reads scripture, in mass or elsewhere, I try to focus on their voice more than the text in front of me, with this ancient practice in mind, when I can remember to.
A year ago, during the last cruise, SGD (I believe) wrote a series of posts on heresy that were so good, I had to store them on my hard drive for constant reference in dealing with Evangelicals. It’s been a year, but another such great “keeper” post has finally come. Good work!
I really like the distinction of forcing a system on Scripture vs deriving a system FROM it and Scripture pointing to something outside itself.
The original purpose of Scripture is also important. The written was meant to be spoken and spoken ABOUT. Taking the written Word out this oral context is like having film celluloid and examining it frame by frame in your hands to discover what movie it contains. Scripture with Tradition is like taking that celluloid and putting it into a projector and playing it the way it was meant to so that everyone can see and hear the movie.
Definitely Sola Scriptura is at its worst when arguing for scripture alone. Think about it: as presently interpreted, it rests on the assumption that everyone is a competent Biblical theologian. Obviously that is not true.
What happens to the faithful who lack this talent? They are forced to rely on chance: hope that the nearest capable warm body is a competent exegete.
On the surface, Sola Scriptura seems to offer a type of freedom from authority. What it actually does is put the faithful on a much shorter leash. Their faith is limited by their personal views, talents, and geography.
Because of this smaller field of view, Protestantism has not experienced the same type of broadening and development that Catholicism has. In fact, Protestant “developments” are usually nothing more than a further narrowing of the faith: a removal of the priesthood, a diminishing of the sacraments, the appointment of women pastors (which is actually the removal of a Scriptural restriction).
I continue:
The other day, I noticed my friend’s Protestant Bible. I am not sure if Catholic Bibles have ever had red type for the words of Jesus and I do not have anything really against WHY someone would want to do make such a Bible.
But it occurred to me that the setting off of Jesus’ words from the rest of the text has a certain perhaps intended, perhaps unintended side effect. The problem is this: if the whole of Sacred Scripture is the inerrant word of God, then why should any one part of it be held higher than another? It violates one of the fundamental rules of Scripture interpretation: that an interpretation of one part cannot contradict (much less “trump”) another.
If the Person who said “In the beginning” is, by nature of the Blessed Trinity, the same as the Person who said “Feed my sheep”, then why set one passage apart from the other with a bolder, more eye-catching color?
Perhaps there is a Protestant out there who might be able to give an explanation similar in form to the reason Catholics revere the Lord’s Prayer — because it is God praying to God, you get a divine introduction to the divine — a sort of double-holy. You might be able to argue that Jesus’ words are the words of God within the Word of God and therefore also a kind of double-holy.
But I have never heard of such reasoning and it still does not explain why God’s voice in the OT, either direct or through His messengers the angels, are also not given a special highlight. Nor does it explain why the actions of Jesus in the NT are also just plain old black ink. Taken in the other direction, this concept of degrees of holiness would make a strong argument for the proper reverencing of Mary, and of the Christ’s Bride the Church that He started.
Talk about your red herrings, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that red type is a readily discernible sign of the Protestant tendency to impose systems from the outside. It is a distraction.
Scripture admonishes those who would add to it or take away from it. Luther did both, yet how many of his spiritual children these days claim to be “Bible” Christians?
“Talk about your red herrings, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that red type is a readily discernible sign of the Protestant tendency to impose systems from the outside. It is a distraction.”-StubbleSpark
This isn’t a theological red-herring. I couldn’t tell you exactly why Christ’s words are written in red in the New Testament, but I don’t think you could say that it’s meant to distract somebody from the issue at hand in an argument. If anything it is a simple reverence for Christ’s Words specifically to clarify exactly when He’s speaking.
I’ve actually never heard any argument that rested on red text. I can’t think of any “outside system” being imposed upon the Scripture from that.
Here’s one evangelical’s perspective. I’m always wary of people who set out to correct the whole world. “Ben Witherington III, professor of New Testament at Asbury Seminary in Kentucky, says a pox on all evangelical houses, at least exegetically.”
I’m not saying one person can’t be the voice of reason or correct theology like Luther, but this guy has yet to persuade me he’s quite a Luther.
And he really lost me here:
“It treats Paul’s letters as if they were theological treatises, which they certainly are not. Paul is operating out of his storied world. He is theologizing and ethicizing into particular situations. His letters are not an abstract collection of eternal principles that we can then link. He’s a pastor preaching, if you will, proclaiming, persuading his audiences on particular points.”
He couldn’t be farther off-base if he quoted the Book of Mormon. Paul was just a preacher, and not a theologian? Ridiculous.
Not done yet, there are apparently some Catholics who seem to favor the idea of one source of revelation, not two separate ones.
http://crowhill.net/Mathison.html
The Protestant idea isn’t that we have no tradition or that tradition is bad and evil, but that tradition is the very gospel taught by the apostles. We believe the Word of God is authoritative on the Church. What is the word of God? What the Apostles and Prophets taught in epistle and by speech. But we have no reason to believe that anything contrary to, or not provable from the written Word was taught, or meant to be normative. (Even Catholic theologians have described the scripture as “The Norm above all Norms.”)
Tertullian’s definition of tradition or Christ’s teachings seems to me to be none other that the proclamation of the gospel itself, which is readily found in the scriptures.
“Now, with regard to this rule of faith – that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend – it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.”-Tertullian in his Prescription against Heretics
He goes on to say that those who claim to disagree with the rule of faith, but agree to the Scripture are still heretics. The rule of faith seems to be a guard against heretical interpretation of scripture, not any extra-biblical ideas. We Protestants, at least all the ones familiar with the issue that I know don’t have any problems with tradition when given qualifiers. Just my $.04.
P.S. I’m not trying to make an exhaustive case for Sola Scriptura here. I’m just trying to illustrate that we as protestants aren’t idiots who distract from theological issues by changing text color. Also we aren’t ignorantly afraid of tradition, or ignorant of the fact that we’re commanded to follow it in the bible.
I really appreciated the posting of this Ben Witherington interview. Witherington is dead-on about the problems following the Enlightenment and the desperate need of Bible readers to understand its story.
While theologians of the Catholic Church have been afflicted by some of the same problems, I think we have been protected from the worst by various practices that are less common (though not nonexistent) among Protestants, like rosary meditation, frequent use of art depicting Bible stories, recognition of typology and other senses of scripture, continuous use of the lectionary, sacramental worldview, etc.
Consider this example:
Many Protestants have thoroughly committed themselves to the “penal substitution” model of atonement, which they try to support with various proof texts from scripture. Some Protestants are so attached to this soteriological model that, in their minds, penal substitution is Christianity and Christianity is penal substitution.
Catholics, on the other hand, have proposed many soteriological models over the centuries. And while one or another may enjoy the greater popularity at a particular time (Anselm’s satisfaction theory seems to be dominant among many Western Catholics today), the Church has never committed to and supported one to the exclusion of others.
Why this difference? I think Witherington is right: Protestants more frequently succumb to the temptation of over-systematizing. The actual story of salvation has prevented Catholics from latching onto one –and only one– soteriological model. It cannot be simplified in the way so many Protestants want. The theme always remains inseparable from a good, well-written story.
I believe that if more Protestants give up on their over-systematizing and return to the story, they will inevitably come back to the Catholic Church.
we tend to forget how much the ancient world ran on oral literature and learning from living people, from mouth to ear.
We forget to our detriment. Ruthenian-Byzantine Catholics frequently joke that a ten year-old who regularly attends Divine Liturgy knows more theology than most adult Latin Catholics who attend the Roman Rite. Why? Because the ten year-old has heard lots of solid, meaty theology in every beautiful kontakion, troparian, etc., throughout his life.
From what I have read of Chrysostom he seems awefully Catholic
This is like suggesting that St. Thomas Aquinas “seems awfully Catholic.” St. John Chrysostom is one of the greatest Catholic theologians to ever live, a Father and Doctor of the Church. Of course he “seems awfully Catholic”! 😀
just what is Arminian theology?
Arminianism, named for Jacobus Arminius, was a reaction to several Calvinist predestinarian doctrines.
Calvinists believe, for example, that the elect absolutely can never fall and will certainly go to heaven. This doctrine is called “perseverance of the saints.”
Arminians, by contrast, believe people who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have sufficient grace to enable them to persevere in the faith, but also believe it is possible for a believer to truly fall.
Calvinists and Arminians are sometimes bitter enemies, calling each other heretics and, sometimes, even doubting that the other is Christian at all.
Some Catholics mistakenly believe, based on examples like the one I just provided, that Arminianism is closer to Catholicism than is Calvinism. The truth is both Calvinism and Arminianism rest on philosophical presuppositions that Catholics reject. Calvinism is similar in some ways to Thomism and Augustinianism in Catholic thought on predestination, and Arminianism is similar in some ways to Molinism in Catholic thought on predestination, but ultimately both Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong.
[Re: “Words of Christ in Red” Bibles] If anything it is a simple reverence for Christ’s Words specifically to clarify exactly when He’s speaking.
Problem is, they don’t actually “clarify exactly when He’s speaking.” The ancient manuscripts don’t have handy punctuation like quotation marks, so it’s sometimes impossible to know where Jesus leaves off and the evangelist starts up again.
A good example appears in John 3. Did Jesus say everything in 3:10-21, or are some of the words Jesus’ and some John’s? Without the quotation marks and red letters, neither of which appeared in the ancient manuscripts, it’s pretty much impossible to tell where Jesus stops speaking.
Paul was just a preacher, and not a theologian? Ridiculous.
You misread what Witherington said and missed the point. Witherington said quite plainly that Paul is “theologizing and ethicizing.” The problem is that too few people recognize that Paul is doing that by applying stories to particular times, places, and circumstances. His letters are not systematic treatises. Witherington is correct about that.
But, Geoff, if tradition (“the rule of faith”) is a guide to interpreting Scripture that isn’t found in Scripture itself, then how is it not an “extra-biblical” ideal?
P.S. My family’s Catholic Bible has the words of Christ in red. My take on it is that while all of scripture is the word of God, it does recount people doing bad stuff. Even the holiest figures (except for Jesus and Our Lady, of course) are not above sin, and even the Mother of God herself was susceptible to simple factual mistakes. So the only person whose words we know will be (1) Absolutely true and (2) Absolutely good, is Jesus. Because God might want to report to us the false or wicked things that others said, we set apart the words of Christ becuase His words are not only inspired by God but also guaranteed good and holy.
francis– regarding red letter Bibles, see my post. The ancient manuscripts don’t have handy punctuation like quotation marks, so it’s sometimes impossible to know where Jesus leaves off speaking and the evangelist starts up again.
francis, not exactly, I also said that those truths were found in scripture. The Scripture is the sum entirety of God’s Normative Revelation. It contains the revealed truths that came from the same source(God through the Apostles) that says the same thing, incidentally, as tradition. And this tradition could easily be extrapolated from a fair reading of the Scripture, too many passages make those claims outright. But the idea that they are also translated down the ages word of mouth style also helps keep us knowing as we read the Scriptures that Christ is all through them, that He is God, that God is just and Holy.
Even Jeff Cavins said (or let it slip he used to be a Calvinist) at an apologetics meeting I attended about the Eucharist, and Catholics complaining about “not being fed.” He said, “every 3 years you heard the entirety of the revelation to us, how are you not being fed.”
[red letters] I meant to the english reader, I know they don’t clarify perfectly in the original languages.
One more thing, Protestantism doesn’t require that all be biblical/theological experts, anymore than being Catholic requires you to be a Church historian, canon lawyer, or perfectly catechized. Read some of Peter Kreeft’s stuff, he’s met far too many Catholics that think they can earn their salvation, when Trent is obviously contrary to that notion.
I think I see your what you’re saying, Geoff. So the “Rule of Faith” is just a reformulation or reorganization of scripture? If I’m understanding this correctly, then your understanding of this rule as “a guard against heretical interpretation of Scripture” is equivalent to saying that Scripture can’t contradict itself. I think we can all agree on that.
Re: red letter bibles: I’m not taking a stand on whether or not the editors did a good job deciding which words were Christ’s, or whether they should have tried at all. I’m just suggesting a possible praiseworthy motivation for their efforts.
the central issue with evangelical theology is error. It is full of error. And just one error can evolve into many errors. Even within the Catholic church, the error of Americanism was entwined into Bishop Fulton Sheen’s happy hour, and ended up transforming him into a humanist on the order of Billy Graham. Sheen was loved by the Catholics and the non Catholics, clear evidence he was not preaching the real Catholic faith.
[red letters] I meant to the english reader, I know they don’t clarify perfectly in the original languages.
Red letters don’t “clarify” anything, no matter what language your Bible is in. Because it’s sometimes impossible to know where Jesus leaves off and the evangelist starts up again, the red letters only confuse people, making them think they know whether Jesus said something when, in reality, there’s sometimes no way to know.
Look at John 3:16, one of the most beloved verses in the Bible. Are these Jesus’ own words, or John the evangelist’s words? In the original manuscript, there’s no way to tell. The quotation marks and red letters that translators have added may tell you that they’re Jesus’ words, or they may tell you they’re John’s words, but you cannot really know for sure one way or the other.
Geoff-
Please don’t let comments like NeoCon’s influence your opinion of Catholicism.
I have known Protestants with the same disease.
I remember attending church services where they talked as if anyone who was not in that church building, on that very night, was doomed to burn in hell.
I think the idea of sinners burning in hell is all that some people have to keep them warm at night.
The Scripture is the sum entirety of God’s Normative Revelation
In which case — where in scripture are we told, normatively, what books are scriptural?
Mary,
The Magisterium is the final authority on what books of the bible are a part of the Deposit of Faith.
What makes Protestantism so awkward at times is if they accept the Catholic bible as infallible, which they do, then how is it the Catholic church cannot be deemed infallible anymore in her dogmatic pronouncements. And if the Catholic church was NOT infallible when the bible was composed, then it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Protestants are at a lost on that.
Tim J: never assume what you heard from protestant preachers applies to me.
The only folks going to hell are those who chose to go there, by deliberate sin. And I absolutely belive that applies , without exception, to any person who is not Catholic. Yuo may find that a statement you disagree with, but I assure you every Saint in Heaven agrees with me. Every One.
Geoff ” the Baptist”
” Also we aren’t ignorantly afraid of tradition, or ignorant of the fact that we’re commanded to follow it in the bible. ”
The Catholic Church teaches that our faith comes from Scripture and Tradition. And of these Tradition is the most important.
All persons without any exception are commanded by God to follow the lawful teachers of the Gospel. and only the catholic church has apostolic sucession and therefore valid orders.
As sincere, intelligent and hardworking as non Catholic preachers may be, they are all preaching a manmade faith,without a divine mandate.
“In which case — where in scripture are we told, normatively, what books are scriptural?”-Mary
“What makes Protestantism so awkward at times is if they accept the Catholic bible as infallible, which they do, then how is it the Catholic church cannot be deemed infallible anymore in her dogmatic pronouncements. And if the Catholic church was NOT infallible when the bible was composed, then it is not worth the paper it is printed on.”-Neoconspy
The whole point is that the scriptures are indeed the writings of the apostle’s and prophets. Whether anybody claimed these works to be authoritative doesn’t make it so. If I’m standing in front of a truck on the highway, and don’t say, “Hey a truck’s coming,” it still will hit me. The reality is that as Christ’s bride we(Christians) are bound to follow His Word. Where is His Word? The teachings of the apostle’s and prophets. We know what they wrote on many accounts, acceptance by the churches, the author’s name, and time the book was written. These all guide us as to whether or not the book is authentically the teachings of an apostle. A weaker far more subjective proof of the authenticity of the New Testament would be experience of many down the line of Christians who have been changed by the Scripture(or the oral teachings of the apostles during the time of the apostles) proves that it is the Word of God as well. 3000 unnamed people, the Eunuch, the Prison Guard, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Wesley, and myself even, I knew nothing of my condemnation or God’s grace until I read from the New Testament, suddenly realized that I had to meet Someone I may not have wanted to meet at all.
The idea that the teaches of the apostle’s and prophets is worthless unless the Church says so doesn’t make any sense. No council named the books of the New Testament as being the New Testament for a long time….so you have fun telling Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Athanasius that they were quoting from worthless paper. They use the New Testament extensively in their writings. I’d name more names….but as that would be dishonest since I haven’t read much except quotes by any other names I indeedly(I made that word up) will not.
I wonder if infallible decrees by the church are rendered worthless as the paper they are written on without an infallible list of such decrees.
teachings not teaches…..sorry
Geoff-
Your argument would have the Church growing out of the ground of Scripture; whereas, if you read the scripture, it is undeniable that the opposite is true: The Scriptures grew out of the Church.
Were every Bible in the world confiscated and burned, the Gospel could go on (though such a thing would be a disaster).
You also may not fully appreciate the controversy that surrounded the scriptures at the time. There were MANY spurious books making the claims to authenticity, and no small number that came near to being included in the canon, but were not.
The Church either had the authority to set the canon, or it didn’t. But if it had no such authority, then the scriptures you rely on for your faith are called into question. Knowingly or not, you owe your Bible to the Catholic Church (even if you are short a few books).
Tim J:
even if you are short a few books
That sounds like your insulting him (I assume you aren’t 🙂
Geoff:
a) If bootylicious can make it in the dictionary, so can indeedly. I’m pulling for you, go for it.
b) the teachings of the apostles and prophets is worthless unless the Church says so
Please clarify what you mean here. This illustrates that you either don’t get something (the nature of the Church’s role in defining the canon) or that your sentence needed revising.
The entire Catholic community haas always accepted the teaching that the Catholic bible is indeed infallible.
Until the 1500’s when Luther invented his own version of salvation history and made changes to the bible which suited his ideology. And that is exactly what non Catholic religions are; assemblies of people who share common opinions.
Of course, they are promoting human faith not divine faith.
The church when speaking ex cathedra is infallible. Any one who denies that is not a Catholic, and is outside the ARK of Salvation, as Pope John Paul II often preached.
The reality is that as Christ’s bride we(Christians) are bound to follow His Word. Where is His Word? The teachings of the apostle’s and prophets.
Interesting definition. But I don’t think you’ll find such a definition of His word in the Bible.
We know what they wrote on many accounts, acceptance by the churches, the author’s name, and time the book was written.
Gospel of Thomas, anyone?
“Acceptance by the churches” is pure Tradition. You explicitly said that everything in Tradition is in the Bible. Where in the Bible are we shown that the churches accepted these and no other?
Author’s name? We are not told in the Bible which writers are authors of inspired works.
And the time the book is written? The Catholic Church indeed teaches that public revelation ended with the death of John the Apostle — but I don’t think you’ll find that in the Bible, either, so how can you say that the time is relevant?
I repeat, “In which case — where in scripture are we told, normatively, what books are scriptural?”
Neoconspy, I have a question for you. Let’s say that you’re absolutely, 100% correct, and that every Protestant in the whole world is destined for Hell unless they come to the Catholic church. My question is this: Is your attitude toward Protestants more likely to produce Protestant interest in the true Catholic church, or a distaste for the Catholic church?
To : a protestant visitor: that is a very good question.
My answer is a two part reply.
First, it is the Scriptural duty of Catholics, who are somewhat learned in the faith, to share with ALL non Catholics that the Catholic faith is the one true religion and the only means of Salvation.
So, the question becomes, how does a Catholic
tell a non Catholic ( in this case) that their
non Catholic faith assembly, is going to send them to hell.
The duty of Catholics is not to pound it into a person, but to share the truth in a sincere, and respectful manner. If the non Catholic rejects it, your duty is done.
The second way I would respond to your question, is this. How did the Saints in previous time periods convince non Catholics to convert.
I assure you it was not with dialogue, because there can be no dialogue with error. Dialogue is a term you will not find in Scripture, nor will you read of any pope or saint or bishop who talked about it prior to about 1960. Dialogue and Tolerance( not a Catholic Virtue )
are the means used by persons without power to eventually attain power. Once the dialogue and tolerance pushers have power, they become intolerant of such devices.
The great saints and priests of the past
preached on the fact that there is a hell, they talked about its torments and they carefully explained that there is One God, and One Faith, and those who do not join the Catholic Faith and Church will most surely enter into that hell.
In fairness, their preaching was not JUST directed to non Catholics but also to Catholics who were in a state of grave sin.
The state of the Catholic church today is that it is filled with dishonest liberals. Hell is rarely preached, so people start to think well, maybe it does not exist.
clergy never rebuke those who contracept, or spend Sunday watching sports, so the idea of putting God number one evaporates. Materialism and indifferentism are the modern day evils that are leading most into apostasy.
And because of that, when a Catholic does tell the truth they are called rigid, mean, harsh or anti-Semite.
Protestants and other non Catholics are bound by Divine Law to seek the truth.
God gives all persons sufficient graces to find the truth.
Those who say that are never going to be popular.
I used to think NeoconSpy was just that: a secularist spy parading as a neocon and leaving the most incendiary comments on this blog in order to make the rest of us look bad. I was going to ask Jimmy to block him and thwart his evil plan.
But sometimes he makes enough sense to make you wonder … maybe he’s a believer after all…
In think in my original message about red type I had a qualifier about the motive being good and not sinister. But my point is that it is indicative of a mindset common among Evangelicals: that certain passages “trump” other passages even if the contradicting passages are greater in number.
Case in point: every time I mention some practice that is unique to my Catholic faith, one Evangelical female I know crinkles her nose and says “That’s LEGALISM.”
Por que? Is it wrong to keep Sunday for worship? To pray a rosary? To genuflect to the Tabernacle? To teach morals? To abstain from birth control?
She is able to do this because she has, in big red letters in her head, Jesus’ condemnation to the Pharisees “You brood of vipers! …” At the expense of the OT God who richly awarded all the faithful who kept His laws, His commands, His decrees, and His statutes. The same God who CURSED all who did not keep His laws, commands, decrees, and statutes. (Yes, the words “not a jot or tittle” are also in red. But the passage is smaller. My point is that the larger passage is like some sort of Scriptural talisman she uses to ward off Truth.)
She is free of the need to synthesize the two types of contrasting passages because somebody already highlighted the important stuff for her and because, as a Protestant, she was born a sufficiently competent Doctor of Bible. Who is going to tell her she’s wrong? Me? You? We have no such authority since Luther.
For Catholics, the God of the OT is the SAME GOD as the one in the NT. Because God is eternal and God is Truth and that means God does not change.
When I was a Protestant, we did not spend a whole lot of time with the OT because by and large we understood it to be less applicable, less meaningful, and therefore less true. Legalism was the theological pigeonhole into which we threw every passage that was disturbing or openly challenged our faith.
The Catholic understanding of Judaism is that it is 100% valid and true religion. After all, if there is something innately untrue about Judaism, what hope can we have? If the practices of the Jews were all purely symbolic gestures like Protestant worship, then how could the sacrificial death of Jesus have any significance or meaning? What does “Lamb of God” mean anyway?
Protestantism works the opposite way. If the original Church from which it was derived was true Christianity, then all legitimacy for Protestantism melts away. In order for Protestantism to be true, Catholicism MUST be false.
This type of thinking ultimately infects Protestant views towards Judaism as well. As a Baptist, we understood that Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees was a sort of prefiguring of Luther’s reformation and that unfaithful OT Jews were sort of the kernel of sin that would eventually blossom into the Catholic Church and all other non-Baptist Christians.
The message from the pulpit was not about how the priests displeased God by changing the liturgy or messing with holy orders, but that somehow the whole idea of making sacrifice itself was foolish in the first place. No one could adequately address the question which pre-Christian Jews were more pleasing to God, the ones that legalistically kept His laws, or the ones that did not because both groups were by theological necessity wrong.
Baptism has no real sacraments (they’re just symbolic). Because it is OSAS, the only real “law” a Christian must follow is to ask Jesus into your heart. After that, ANYTHING goes. It shrinks like a vampire from a cross at ideas like commands, duties, covenants or any other Jewish (or Catholic) traits.
And in further defense of Neocon (I can’t believe I’m doing this) ALL religions, even the most flaky ones, say that certain peoples who do not go through certain motions while believing certain things will go to Hell. To say otherwise would be to practice a faith that does not claim to save and nothing could be more pointless.
Neocon and StubbleSpark, I’m not asking anybody to dishonor their own theology. I’m saying that Neocon’s posts are, shall we say, lacking in tact. I don’t sense a lot of love being emitted toward non-Catholics.
Thank you S. Spark and the Protestant visitor.
I would add one modification to what S-Sparks posted about Judaism.
” The Catholic understanding of Judaism is that it is 100% valid and true religion. After all, if there is something innately untrue about Judaism, what hope can we have? If the practices of the Jews were all purely symbolic gestures like Protestant worship, then how could the sacrificial death of Jesus have any significance or meaning? ”
Judaism is actually a religion that began after the death of Jesus. It was the ‘tradition of the elders’ that Jesus condemned. What the Rabbi’s had done was to make the claim that Moses had also given them a oral teaching, and this they turned into the Talmud.
The teachings of the Talmud became known as Judaism.
The fact that Jesus was a Jew is correct. His religious practices centered around the OT and the various ceremonies that were practiced in
the Temple. Was this called Judaism ? No
The modern day practices of the Catholic church are in fact a continuation of the One True Religion ( with a patriarch and a valid sacrafice) that had its earliest start with Adam.
and it continued with Abel ( who offered a true sacrifice. The sacrifice of Cain ( which would represent a false sect) was not acceptable to God, and in modern times neither are the sacrifices offered by non Catholic religions.
As to the practice of some religious not wearing their habit in public, one priest told me it is a sign they are either non belivers or living a life of sin.
I will add one more qualifier to my previous post about Catholics spearding the One True Faith to non Catholics.
Spreading the faith to others is not easy for some. People are different. And for those who are not comfortable doing so, it is best they leave it to others. However, Every Catholic is required to at least defend the faith agasint error.
Here is example.
At Thanksgiving your relatives are gathered and all are non Catholic.
Your Father in law is talking about the Catholic Church and says all religions are the same, etc..
As a Catholic, you would be obliged to say,” that is not what the Catholic church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches it is the One True Religion outside of which no person is saved.”
At this point your obligation is fulfilled.
Your Father in law might disagree, but that is his opinion.
To remain silent, should such a conversation take place, would give scandal to the Catholic Faith, if your relatives knew you were a Catholic. I do not know the severity of the sin, to refuse to defend the faith, but it is a sin.
A site on personal budgeting Do check it out and let me know what you think of it
http://www.budgetadvice.com
A site on personal budgeting Do check it out and let me know what you think of it
Budgetadvice.com
To say that Tradition is all contained in Sriptures is not a biblical afirmation. This is just another theory that tries to save one protestant model of Sola Scriptura.
Paul used his letters in order to complete what he taught orally as we can see reading 2 Thes 2:15.