Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

The first born harlot daughter of the great scarlet harlot herself.

 

How do you see Islam as a result of the Catholic Church?


God bless.

 

DHK,


You’ve suggested that I take topics on one at a time. However, it’s not me bringing things up. I responded initially, with a direct comment concerning the question of Muslims and whether or not they should be understood as worshiping God Almighty. Everything since then represents my attempts to field whatever is presented. You make so very many allegations, analogies, and examples, etc. I don’t know what to do but respond to them. I admit, your approach has a certain rhetorical effect. But that’s why I feel compelled to respond to each point, at least briefly. Again, I am responding, not setting the agenda, so here goes:


Part A

You wrote: To bait and kill rats on a farm a cup of grain mixed with just a little bit of arsenic will kill them. The RCC has a whole lot of arsenic in it and only some truth. It is difficult to defend error as truth.


A response: I could say the same thing about your Baptist views. I could say “Your views are only partially true.” They are mostly “arsenic.” It is “difficult to defend error as truth.” Where would that get us? Obviously, you hold to some Catholic truths and reject others. You hold to the Trinity. As a matter of history, that’s a doctrine which, though certainly present in Sacred Scripture, was a matter of bitter disagreement among Christians that was rightly discerned and settled during the 4th Century (and was rather neatly codified according to Pope St. Damasus’s pronouncements of AD 382). It’s good that you hold to that teaching of the Church. There are certainly other Church teachings to which you’re faithful. For example, the 27-book Canon of the New Testament, that’s a list not found within the Scriptural texts themselves, which is itself, therefore, unBiblical. So it is that we have an unBiblical Biblical Canon which has come to us over the centuries by the grace of God through the ministry of the Church. Beyond these things, though, you determine, according to your own unique Biblical, historical, philosophical, traditional, and rational bases what is and is not “arsenic.” I, on the other hand, don’t see arsenic where you do. Our conversation, then, shouldn’t focus upon the identification of arsenic itself. For what I see as arsenic, you don’t, and vice versa. Our conversation should take a step back and consider the different ways by which we go about determining “arsenic” from “grain.” This is what I attempted to address in my first responses to you (which I don’t think you read). I spoke to the fact that your test for Biblical veracity doesn’t pass its own test for Biblical veracity. In other words, the standard by which you seem to accept or reject various doctrines (That something must be explicitly presented in the Scriptures in order to be affirmed) fails its own standard. For that “Biblical standard” by which you apparently determine the legitimacy of a doctrine is itself an unBiblical standard. So it is that the test you’re using to distinguish pure grain from poisoned grain isn’t a reliable test. You said that contraception isn’t in the Bible, therefore, the doctrine is exempt from moral consideration. Again, though, by that same illogical leap you saw off the branch upon which you’re sitting. For as I said above, the New Testament doesn’t contain within its pages a list which reads “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians…” Yet, you don’t just judge its moral status. By it, you judge the moral status of everything else.


You wrote: I think I made my point that the Pope made the RCC quite uncomfortable when he advocated the use of contraceptives when the Catechism forbids it. I will leave it there. I think it will be more profitable to pursue doctrine than history. I can do either, but doctrine is more profitable.


A response: Let’s be clear. Though the Pope’s remarks were confusing. It can’t be said that he “advocated the use of contraceptives.” From what I read, I didn’t hear an advocation at all. If we are going to take an extemporaneous, translated interview presented to us by a biased media as honestly and clearly delivering to us both the Pope’s remarks as well as the full context within which they were uttered and, to a great extent, by which we’d be able to evaluate them, then, at best, as I said elsewhere, we discover that his remarks “seem” to present ideas or possible routes of action (which could be taken to combat the threat of Zika) which are, by possibly suggesting a “lesser of two evils” approach, at odds with Catholic teaching. But again, I think there are too many ambiguous things at play here to really know what principles we may draw from his remarks. So if you brought up the Pope’s remarks in an effort to demonstrate a change in Catholic doctrine, you didn’t make your point. You clearly fell short of that goal. For earlier you made an assertion (that the Pope changed Catholic doctrine). Your attempt to substantiate your claim has failed in a number of ways. If you’re going to make a claim, it would be worthwhile to take the time to support it before moving on to something else. On the other hand, if your point was that the Pope’s comments made some people “uncomfortable” or “confused,” you won’t find me arguing against you. I am certainly awaiting further clarification from Rome. I would hope that with the Pope’s upcoming document concerning the status of the family in modern society, the Pope will reaffirm the Church’s longstanding teachings in clear and unambiguous terms… For when I first read the transcript I was certainly confused. As I said, though, when the media report, and linguistic, cultural, contextual, and historical factors are at play, one cannot prudently draw decisive conclusions concerning matters this serious. Further, it is possible that the Pope was responding to the question within a context whose discussion included non-catholic populations (such as medical professionals who don’t take their marching orders from their local bishop). Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI received similar criticism when he spoke of prostitutes and people involved in sexually exploitative situations using various means of contraception to protect themselves from the spread of illness. Certainly, he was speaking to the already morally-compromised circumstances associated with a particular population of people whose conduct falls under a framework of moral consideration unlike that applied to the challenges, struggles, and behaviors of most people. Simply put, in order to draw final conclusions from the Pope’s comments, further information is required.

 

Part B

In response to my comment, you continued: “You also wrote: It is false because the Bible is silent on this subject and doesn't speak for or against contraception.” That is true. It is true because in the realm of morality it is neither moral or immoral.


A response: Concerning the question of contraception, you’ve now made another claim.

1. First you said: “It (The Bible) would only speak against that form of contraception which would lead to abortion, or more specifically would abort the baby.”
   
   
2. Next you said: It (the moral status of flying) isn't in the Bible, you know. And neither is contraception.
   
   
3. Now you’re now saying: “in the realm of morality, it is neither moral nor immoral.”
   

So which one is it? And by what consistent, objective principle do you operate as you seek to determine the moral status of a given act? You’ve said, by my counting, three things now about the moral status of contraception. Now, apparently, it is amoral. But is there really such a thing as an entirely amoral act? Whether we’re paying bills, mowing the grass, or brushing our teeth, aren’t all of our acts somehow able to be weighed on the scale of God’s moral law? How much more, then, is every sexual act to be evaluated in light of God’s Law? To think that we humans, made in His divine image, have been made stewards of Creation. To think that we participate, through procreation, in the populating of the Earth with sons and daughters of God who may be adopted into God’s family according to the merits of Christ? Can we really safely say that acts of contraception are neither moral nor immoral because we don’t see them spelled out in the Scriptures according in all of their modern medical confusion? Do you really expect St. Paul to discuss IUDs? No, the Bible teaches that Christ left a Church to speak to such matters. And this Church, which is identified as a divine society from whose incorporation one may be expelled and within whose public bounds one may be welcomed, has the Holy Spirit as its doctrinal Guarantor. Further, this Church was granted the very authority of Christ to bind and loose. And this authority didn’t die with the Apostles. For right there in the pages of Holy Scripture we see the office, left vacant by Judas Iscariot, filled once again through the ministry of the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And all of this is why I originally said that your positions were like the statue from Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Your positions seem solid and well-grounded to you. They seem to hold up the questions you’re asking. But how do you know you’re asking the right questions? You’re evaluating your positions according to the apparent sturdiness of the head and shoulders. Look at the feet, though. They’re crumbling.


You continued: There are other aspects to marriage. It might be selfish for a couple to never have children, but then we can't condemn for we don't know the circumstances.


A response: Yes, there are “other aspects” to marriage. These are understood according to the natural and universally human elements present in all marital relationships. Catholic sacramental theology teaches that very concept. With regard to the conjugal act, though, unity and procreation are both components which are to be upheld in every act of conjugal love. We know this through nature and the ends to which the conjugal act is physically ordered (both unity and procreation) as well as through divine revelation. Your next statement, though, reveals another misunderstanding of the position we are in. We certainly cannot condemn people with finality. I am not advocating the general condemnation of people who use contraception. But we can (indeed we Christians must) condemn *certain acts* according to their moral status. We do this every day. In this brief exchange, for example, you’ve condemned a host of practices and beliefs held to by the Catholic Church. So surely you’re not suggesting that we cannot assess the moral status of an act and speak accordingly, are you? The question is, are our pronouncements concerning morality sound? And how do we know? Certainly we condemn, Polygamy (Though Martin Luther held to the position that the practice could not be condemned on Scriptural grounds). On the other hand, neither we are not called to condemn *people( for their actions. We may say “What you did was, according to the Church’s teaching, sinful.” But we don’t say “You are going to Hell.” The Church has the responsibility to inform and instruct when it comes to matters of faith. The Church also disciplines her members. This responsibility comes along with the Church being the “pillar and ground of truth.” The Church teaches, though, that only God can condemn, that only God can judge the heart of an individual.

 

Part C

You continued: However, for the RCC to condemn the practice and a family ends up with too many children that they can handle on a financial basis is a sin on the church's behalf.


A response: Now you seem to be using the word “condemn” in reference not to individuals but to certain acts. This is where you and the Catholic Church participate in the same activity. Both you and the Catholic Church actively and vehemently condemn certain actions according to their immorality. So it’s not as though the Church is doing something which you disapprove of on a principled basis. You just don’t agree with the Scriptural, philosophical, traditional, theological, and historical bases by which the Church makes her determinations. For you have a competing set of Scriptural, philosophical, traditional, theological, and historical bases by which you condemn certain activities as sinful. The question, though, concerns where the authority to make such determinations lies. Your challenge presupposes the falsity of the Catholic Church’s position concerning contraception. For one thing, the question of financial prudence factors into the Church’s teaching regarding procreation. Second of all, are couples so animalistic as to not be able to remain continent during fertile periods so as to space the birth of children according to financial, emotional, relational, familial, and other related matters? The Church is calling all people to chastity. True chastity isn’t something for the unmarried alone. Chastity is something for those with a vocation to the married life, as well. Again, though, many of your comments, far from shooting holes in the moral edifice that is Catholic doctrine, do little but reveal your misunderstanding of nature, role, history, and self-understanding of this Church which you so vehemently oppose.


And in response to my remarks, you wrote: “...in vitro fertilization, human cloning, the use of hallucinogenic drugs for recreational purposes, and a number of other issues are not addressed in the Bible.”

The Bible is not completely silent on these issues. It gives us principles to abide by.

It does say: "Thou shalt not murder." I am sure you are familiar with the Ten Commandments.


A response: Certainly even something which seems so clear, though, is open to misunderstanding. For there are Christians who apply this universally while others allow for exceptions in the case of the death penalty, for example. Who’s to decide how the principle is applied?


You continued: It also says that believers ought to "have the mind of Christ."


A response: Yes, and for more and more people nowadays that means “truly loving” everyone and accepting any number of immoral activities as just as legitimate as truly moral activities. Is this not likely why, when Philip called out to the Ethiopian Eunuch, saying “Understandest thou what thou readest?” the Eunuch responded by saying “How can I, except some man should guide me?”? Further, 2nd Peter 3:16 refers to “ignorant and unstable men” who “wrest” the Scriptures to their own destruction. Notice, it’s not just an evil heart which threatens us. It’s ignorance that Peter warns against, also. This is why GK Chesterton once said that he needed a Church which was right when he was right. But he also needed a Church which is right when he is wrong. That is, when he doesn’t see or understand something rightly, he needs to be corrected. Nowadays, our church’s seem to be made more and more in the image and likeness of man and less as instruments of God’s revelation to us (and according to whose Law we are called to conform ourselves).


You continued: It says "the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that it belongs to God. It does not belong to oneself. It is not there for one's own recreation, to do whatever a person wants to do. (1Cor.6:19,20)


A response: Yes, the Bible says this. However, if you’re going to affirm this passage and then go on to make the leap you made earlier concerning the Bible’s alleged silence on the question of contraception so as to deem the “spilling of one’s seed” a morally acceptable act, then you seem to be pitting the conclusions you’re drawing from Scripture’s alleged silence against the notion to which you now appeal which states that the body “is not there for one’s own recreation, to do whatever a person wants to do.” What consistent principles can you identify by which you might be assured that you’re rightly interpreting and applying Scripture to human activity? For the Catholic, the Church is this principle. The Church is wed to her Groom, Christ. The two are indeed one (Ephesians 5). This is why when He confronted Saul, Christ said “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Notice how Christ considered the persecution of the Christians to be direct persecutions of His own self.


You continued: --From these passages we know that destroying one's mind and body is absolutely wrong, and that is what happens when using hallucinogenic drugs.


A response: Though I am not advocating for the use of hallucinogenic drugs here, there are a host of unhealthy activities (like eating way too much sugar) which are detrimental to the body and which, according to your application of these Biblical principles may or may not be condemned. Smoking, though many Christians do it, is also very hard on the body, perhaps harder than using certain hallucinogenic drugs recreationally. The slope upon which you’re arguing is very slippery and is anything but clearly Biblical. It is mostly philosophical. At what point does your principle cease to apply? Where does it start and end? Who’s to say? The Magisterium of the Church established by Christ, as servant to the Holy Scriptures, being entrusted by God to shepherd His People according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, represents the principled, public, God-ordained means by which these and other matters may be addressed.


You continued: It is also against the law. (Romans 13:1-5).


A response: First of all, God’s moral law stands above all human law. And the law of man isn’t universal. Sure, some acts are illegal in some places. But they’re not illegal in others. It’s not as though there is a universal human law banning the use of hallucinogenic drugs. Also, there are currently various unjust laws such as those which allow the destruction of children in their mothers’ wombs. You’re not going to appeal to a current “legal status” to justify those acts, are you? Indeed, people once used Romans 13 to argue for the continuation of slavery in America. Appeal to secular law will only get you so far. For secular law will betray your christian principles just as easily as it might (in its own self-interest) exploit them for its own unjust ends.


You continued: The Bible has much to say about this topic.

--Concerning in vitro fertilization, it is a method of fertilization, and there are obvious biblical guidelines to follow there as well. I don't want to get explicit here as this is a family forum.


A response: Are you suggesting that there really are “obvious” biblical guidelines for the practice of a technology not known for many centuries after the writing of the New Testament Scriptures? There are certainly guidelines there, yes. But I’m quite sure that they cannot be considered “obvious.” Further, what you may see as obvious depends upon your personal intelligence, cultural heritage, linguistic background, etc. Another person may, in good faith, read the same text as you and not see the same “obvious” conclusion which you may draw from it.

 

Part D

You continued: --As for cloning I believe it is still against the law.

A response: Your response concerning human cloning implies the existence of one universal law binding upon all humans on all continents. Yes, human cloning is currently banned in many nations. However, human-animal hybrid embryos have been used in research in the UK and there are many signs of the times which would indicate the breakdown many of the regulations related to cloning of stem cells, etc. in the name of medical research. Further, as I said above, since the secular state’s authority is fully subsidiary and subject to God’s divine Law, and is ever-changing, as far as moral matters are concerned, appealing to the state is like linking your position to the daily and ever-changing weather. If that is the grounding upon which you rest your positions, don’t get too comfortable with them, especially as far as human cloning and euthanasia are concerned.


You continued: There are your answers.


A response: No. Those are *your answers,* not mine. And they are quite unsatisfactory on Biblical, rational, legal, historical, and Christian grounds.


Responding to my comments, you continued: “Another thing that’s not in the Bible is a statement such as this one “In order for a doctrine to be deemed authentic among Christians, it must be explicitly outlined within the pages of the Bible.” So it is your attempt to apply an unBiblical principle to Catholic teaching which has you in a bind. What does the Bible say about the Church, though? Well, if you take the time to read my original responses to you, you will see that I have addressed these matters, at least in a cursory way…” There is no "Church," especially not the RCC.


A response: There is no “Church,” you say? What about the Church Christ mentioned when he said “Upon this rock I will build my church and the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”? You said, also, “especially not the RCC.” Is there another Catholic Church, another universal, authoritative Church of history which has held Councils and shepherded God’s Flock for nearly 2,000 years that represents a possible alternative “Catholic Church” whose claim to being the Church is more plausible than that of the “RCC”? Was it some other Church which convened in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea? What about another Catholic Church excommunicating the Emperor Theodosius? Is there another Catholic Communion somewhere?


You continued: It is an unbiblical monstrosity of an organization composed of businessmen not chosen or led by the Holy Spirit, who have no idea what it means to be born again.


A response: This is your human opinion. This is not the “Word of God.” How do you know that what you’re saying here represents an accurate assessment of the Church? I know people who grew up in the Church and came to hate everything about her, mostly, if not entirely on account of their parents’ empty, hollow, and hypocritical faith. I also know people who grew up in the Faith and love the Church, the teachings, the Sacraments, and above all, the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ. So upon whose witness do I rely? Do I just pick from among my friends those whose descriptions of the Church most align with my prejudices? I can tell you that had I done that I’d never have been received into the Church. How do you know that the reason you’ve come to see the Catholic Church as an “unbiblical monstrosity” isn’t a result, not of anything in the Bible, but of the particular paradigm you came to adopt as you found the Biblicist tradition to suit your emotional, social, psychological, and cultural needs? Now, I am not saying that these things are the case. For I don’t know you and even if I did, I wouldn’t make such judgments. But I am asking you how it is you assure yourself that you’re not mistaken about the nature and purpose of the Church. Afterall, among the Apostles themselves we find corruption, betrayal, foolishness, pridefulness, and self-importance. Yet, it was not the absence of these things through which Christ operated, but within and even according to these things that Christ established His Church. Christ’s Church, think about it, couldn’t be something which would be dependent upon the impeccability of its members. No, His Church needed to be foolproof despite the overwhelming number of fools within it. Chesterton once wrote the following: “When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.” The answer to corruption in the Church, though, isn’t to redefine the Biblical terms according to which the Church is defined. The answer is to recognize that even the depths of mankind’s sinfulness cannot threaten the Church of Christ. Then we are called to join those hypocrites and sinners being redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and through His grace seek to be the purity in His Bride.

 

Part E

You continued: That being said: Jesus said "Except a man be born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of God."


A response: Yes, this is just one verse of Scripture, among the all the Church upholds, that captures a particularly poignant conversation between Christ and Nicodemus. The mere presentation of this verse, however, doesn’t argue for your interpretation of it (whatever your interpretation of it may be) over mine.


You continued: When a person has no idea or the wrong idea what the new birth is how can they ever expect to go to heaven.


A response: That’s a great question. I’d have to say, though, that confused people may go to Heaven not on account of the occasional things they understand rightly but according to the shed blood of Christ. After all, even the smartest among us probably hold to “wrong ideas” or have “no ideas” about how things really are supposed to be occasionally. Good thing we are called to lean not upon our own understanding!


You continued: The RCC has been teaching this poison on this subject for centuries leading people to hell. Should I feel any sympathy for it? Never!


A response: I am not sure you identified just what this alleged poison is. You referred to Christ’s words to Nicodemus and then went on to make some points about wrong ideas or no ideas and then when straight into the remark about “this poison.” To what poison are you referring? And about sympathy, I am not calling you to have sympathy for the Church at this point. I am just trying to understand why you have such strong feelings about the Church and how it is that you have come to understand the Bible, and not your unique philosophical tradition, to be the thing which justifies your position concerning the nature and constitution of the Catholic Church.


You continued: Abortion: "Thou shalt not kill." The pill simply does not permit conception to take place. There is nothing "to kill," since life begins at conception.


A response. You’re mistaken on this point. Take some time to read up on the term “abortifacient.” On some occasions, though an egg has been fertilized and life has begun (at conception, as you acknowledged above) the presence of the birth control agent may act in such a manner as to prohibit the fertilized egg from implanting properly in the endometrium. Thus, a woman may be releasing from her womb her conceived baby, as it was rendered unable to receive the safety it needs to develop on account of her (immoral) use of a birth control agent. It is the responsibility of Christians to inform women about such matters so that they don’t unknowingly participate in the abortion of their own children through the use of abortifacient drugs.


You continued, in response to my comments: “One cannot be against that which the Bible is silent about. A response: Could you please show me (Chapter and verse) where the Bible says anything remotely like this statement: ‘One cannot be against that which the Bible is silent about.’” Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


A response: It is indeed noble, beneficial, worthwhile, and great to search the Scriptures daily to test that which we’re being told. Catholics do this all the time. What’s not “noble” is to attempt to pit the Scriptures against God as the Pharisees did, to cling to the letter of the Law and leave the more weighty matters unattended, matters like justice, mercy, and charity. Further, what would also *not* be righteous would be an attempt to wield the Scriptures against the very Church established by Christ and according to whose witness we have come to recognize the God-breathed texts of Scripture themselves. Remember, right there in that same book (The Bible), in Chapter 1 we see a vacant apostolic office filled by Matthias. Further on, in Chapter 8, as I mentioned above, we see another noble soul, the Ethiopian Eunuch, who, recognizing the position he’s in, sought the guidance of Philip the Evangelist. The fundamental problem here is that you see a verse like this as somehow discrediting to the Catholic faith. However, it does no such thing. I could produce entire books written by Catholics and I could quote Catholics all day long who praise the Scriptures, uphold their importance, and take their words to heart. It’s not as though you have some special rights to claim these verses as your own and write other Christians off according to your particularly nuanced interpretation and application of their content.

 

Part F

You continued: Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


A response: Yes, this is another reference to the Scriptures which are upheld within the Church. The mere presentation of this verse does nothing to demonstrate the validity of your position. By no means does this text amount to something like “One cannot be against that which the Bible is silent about.” Also, consider the very specific context of that passage. Is it safe to attempt to present that Scriptural passage as the basis or justification of your philosophical tradition? If I wanted to, I could start my own little Church in my basement and we could base everything we believe on my particular reading of Scripture. Then, when we’re questioned, I could just present this verse. There is no consistent principle of interpretation or application, though, which suggests that this verse should in any way be used as part of one’s complex philosophical and theological tradition of Biblical interpretation.


You continued: Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.


A response: Yes, Jesus said this to Sadducees. Surely, you’re not suggesting that the Sadducees were not familiar with the Scriptures, though. The Sadducees were a group of individuals with a tendency toward direct alignment with Scripture and they were rather opposed to the lack of certainty concerning Scriptural interpretation which came along with the Pharisees’ oral traditions of interpretation. So it’s not that Jesus was actually suggesting they didn’t know what the Scriptures said. The Sadducees are thought to have been more of an aristocratic sect, concerned with rigid legalism and traditional observance of the Law. Isn’t Christ suggesting here that they don’t “know” the Scriptures in the sense that they don’t “get” or “truly understand” the Scriptures? Because we know that they did indeed “know” them in an academic and cultural sense. In a similar way, Jesus addressed a similar problem present among the Pharisees when he said “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” For it wasn’t that these various sects didn’t know the Scriptures literally. On the contrary, these groups raised their children to know the Scriptures well, in an academic and cultural sense. There problem was that their whole outlook was disoriented. They were legalistic fundamentalists of a certain variety. They had arranged their systems of understanding God, the Law, the Traditions in an unGodly way which sought to secure their high status in God’s eyes, to secure their high appointment. Jesus came to set all those things right, to arrange them properly. His doing so entailed a complete theological dismantling of their broken paradigms. And His chosen means of setting things right wasn’t going to be subject to the disorientation of the past. No, through the Church He was to establish there’d be a binding authority, a fulfillment of the things only approximated by the previous system. What Christ would establish through the Apostles, He promised, would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. So your particular reading and application of this passage of Holy Scripture fails to justify your apparent Biblicism.


In response to my comments about the Father of the Wright Brothers, you responded with the following: In their age some of the Protestant leaders were called Bishops. Perhaps I should have said church leader. The point is still the same. He declared he knew the will of God. The Bible is as silent on airplanes as it is on contraception. That was the point. It didn't have anything to do with bishops.


A response: Many Protestant leaders still call themselves bishops to this day. Oftentimes, though Catholics don’t understand them to have valid sacramental orders or any direct lineage to the Apostles through the laying on of hands, Catholics still regard them as bishops, as well out of respect for their standing in their respective traditions and communions. And your point about this particular Bishop’s views concerning the possibility of flight have, as I see it, nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic teaching, the Catechism, etc. The Bishops of the Catholic Church address matters of faith and morals with a certain stewardly authority by virtue of the Keys to the Kingdom conferred by Christ to the entire apostolic college there in Matthew 18. Then, by virtue of Apostolic Succession, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as Apostles died, new men were appointed to replace them to govern and shepherd the Church. Their successors, together with the Pope (who occupies the Office of Peter who was given the Keys singularly), evaluate the moral landscape of each and every age and a guided by the Spirit of God as a human Captain and Crew guide a great ship sailing across the centuries with a mission to save sinners.

 

Part G

In response to me you continued:

Obviously. That was my point of the above illustration. Not "bishops."


A response: Nothing here is obvious to me. I am quite confused by a number of twists and turns this conversation has taken. I am trying to respond to everything you’ve brought up. But the topics are broad and rather unwieldy.


In response to my expressing the fact that I am confused that you seem to have expressed three different positions concerning the question of what the Bible says about contraception, you wrote: No, he did not. God severely judged him because he directly rebelled against God's command to Onan. That verse is not about contraceptives or any other similar thing. Don't take it out of context. It is about rebellion against God, and that is all.


A response: The specific context addresses the situation in which Onan found himself with regard to his deceased brother’s wife, a position he was not favorable towards for a number of reasons. The broader context, though, includes human sexuality and the natural course of conjugal relations, which, if not deliberately frustrated, lead to procreation. God was, thus, expecting to be obedient to both Judah and the natural order of things. After all, the natural world provides the context for every human act which falls within the moral sphere. Nothing in the text indicates that the *only* thing that was wicked was Onan’s spiritual act of rebellion. For Onan was operating in a physical world, a world in which things may be evaluated according to the immorality of both their physical and their spiritual or unseen qualities. It is, according to a fuller assessment of the context, then, and not by taking anything “out of context” that Onan’s act can be seen as wicked both for the disobedience and rebellion in his heart and for the deliberate violation of the natural order of conjugal love which maintains a fullness of its own and should be treated with respect for its own natural and innate characteristics.


To summarize, you said: Onan's act was wicked because he rebelled against God, and that is all.


A response: Where does the verse say “Onan’s act was wicked because he rebelled against God, and that is all.”? It doesn’t. The verse actually says “What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death also.” (NIV) In other words, the act was wicked, period. What you understand to be “wicked” about the act has everything to do with your philosophical traditions, which, incidentally, do not align with the Christian faith. For throughout the ages, Christians have taught that the Sin of Onan amounted to contraception and forbade it. Lecturing on the book of Genesis, Martin Luther had this to say about it: “Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . .” Was Martin Luther taking the matter out of context? No. Rather it is a mistake to unnaturally restrict the act to only one of its aspects (that of disobedience) and not allow it to speak to the broader natural context in which it occurred. Please know that, at the end of the day, your system of belief is more about philosophy than anything. It’s more about a paradigm than it is about Scripture. It’s more about a certain set of lenses which you wear than it is about the Bible. And that’s what’s so very pernicious about it. People who hold to a view similar to yours see those who disagree with them as not disagreeing with them, but as disagreeing with God’s Holy Word itself. All of this shouldn’t be understood as some sort of unrealistic cheerleading for the Catholic Church. It is precisely because of the precarious situation in which the Church finds herself today that I’d even spend time in a forum like this. The Church has its own serious problems. These issues would mortally wound any other institution. What Catholics need, though, isn’t non-Catholic opponents. Catholics need you, DHK. The Church needs dedicated, devoted followers of Christ who are currently stuck in the mire of philosophical incoherence which they mistake for Biblical assurance. If non-Catholic Christians were to return to the Catholic Church, align with her moral teachings, live as citizens in a manner consistent with her teachings, and meet one another at the Table of the Lord to receive Holy Communion, the world would be transformed overnight.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Gerhard,

Could you please identify anything I or another Catholic on this thread have said which demonstrates how evil Catholicism is? Please cite the exact text and explain why it is evil.

Thanks.

Herbert VanderLugt

 

Alright, Darrell- I won't take the time to respond then, since you'll be moving on. Good luck on your search. I'd recommend anything from the Catechism or the former Assemblies of God Youth Minister, Tim Staples.

In Him,

Herbert VanderLugt

 

I am going to try to make this my last day for now, but, I hope you stick around, Herbert, always love to have discussions with Catholics. The reason why hatred for Catholics abounds is because there are so few (Catholics) who are willing to enter into discussions. Those discussions are beneficial for both sides. Believe it or not, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the Atheists I have debated. We can learn (and I am not referring to doctrine, but simply to interaction with those of differing views) from all of our antagonists, I believe.

So I am here this morning, and had planned to be here for a while today, but had a service call come in which ruins my plans, lol.

As far as resources I would approve of, they have to be Catholic Doctrine only, rather than the interpretations of Catholics. It's kind of like Scripture: a doctrine is debated, and someone says "Such and such taught this about this passage." That's great, but, an examination of the text is what is necessary. We all impose our personal Theologies (even Catholics, lol) into our interpretations.

In regards to the Assemblies of God (assuming converted to Catholicism) teacher, I am in opposition to Basic Charismatic Doctrine (that which is distinctive to Charismatics, most are familiar with them), but, I do have some hands on experience with the AoG. I was dating a girl who was AoG years ago and went on a Missions trip to Austria with them. They are a more conservative group, and I believe have some very sincere believers. However, that doesn't mean their error can be overlooked. This convert is not really a good resource for one primary reason: he already has shown he can be a member of another faith, embraced that faith, then turn around and renounce the distinctives of that faith. We see this in all groups. Catholics become Evangelical, Protestant becomes Catholic, Conservative becomes Charismatic.

Not a resounding endorsement of capability handling doctrine.

I would also just like to mention that quoting procedure is an important aspect of Forum Missions (and like it or not, you are a forum missionary, lol). We owe it to our antagonist to properly quote. No pun intended, but, "When in Rome..."



You can look at a post you would like to respond to, and highlight what is not already in quotes, and a prompt will appear..."Quote/Reply." If you hit on quote, it will save the highlighted portion to a page for later reference, and if you hit on "Reply" it will immediately place you in a response with that which you have highlighted. This is a very nice function, I really like it, rather than having to input the code manually. You can even move from page to page and highlight other statements, hit reply, and it will immediately import that which you highlighted into your response.

Why this is beneficial is that it not only identifies more clearly who you are quoting, it will give a link back to that particular post (you will see an arrow by the name).

So just mentioning this to help you out. It will save you from having to put in "Antagonist said," et cetera.

Anyway, glad to have met you, and hope your time here will be blessed. I will go through (and have already skimmed them) your responses here and just pick a particular topic.


God bless.

 

I think we could, if we consult the surrounding text, make a case for how your antagonist has present the quote from Isaiah. There is a statement in the passage which rebukes consulting sources rather than the Word of God.

Now, you say...

(And here I have gone back to the original post this quote is from, and individually highlighted the following statements and hit "quote." When I return to the response I am working on there is in the bottom left a prompt that says "Insert Quotes" which I am now going to hit. This will break up each statement I want to address individually, which makes it a little clearer as to who said what, and where it came from. This will limit unnecessary "I didn't say that!" and save time in the discussion as a whole, allowing us to keep our focus on what we see as significant to be pointed out in the discussion)

Not really, Herbert, because it would violate a significant belief most Catholics hold to, which is the unity that attracts a number of converts to the Catholic Church. We have to admit that the Catholic Church is a Christian organization that can trace her roots back to antiquity, which is a notable point.

Secondly, you are actually presenting a false argument in an attempt to create something that violates interpretive efforts, which is not a characteristic you can legitimately impose on those you see taking this approach. In other words, you start with several assumptions, one being that the interpreter does not give attendance to the responsibility of proper interpretation, another that he considers his interpretation flawless.

In fact many fellowships and denominations have arisen out of private interpretations which can be easily demonstrated to be error by those who do properly interpret.

And here is where the rubber meets the road: what are we going to be looking at in order to conclude if that interpretation is correct, and that separation is justified?

If you say anything but Scripture, I would consider the answer to be wrong.

We can't find our basement fellowship justified by saying "Well, first century Christians departed from the visible Body of Christ," because they didn't. We can't have them saying "Well, I just feel that my interpretation is right."

No, what is going to determine that their doctrine is not in error (not to mention justification for separation) is only going to be determined by one thing, and that is by comparing their doctrine to the Doctrine of the Bible.

So if you did start a basement fellowship, you are going to be held accountable first and foremost by how your doctrine stands when compared to Biblical Doctrine. Your Practice is secondary to that.

Again, this is a false argument.

You have to impose improper interpretation into the hypothetical situation. You say it is not consistent...why? Because it has to be for your example to seem reasonable.

Secondly you dismiss the approach as philosophy, but...is it? Do we not see Christ maintain throughout His Ministry to Israel a strict demand for Doctrinal and Biblical understanding? He oft counters "You have heard it said" with "But I say unto you," and then proceeds to expound upon the very principles of the Word of God. He oft says "It is written." This is a statement found throughout the entire Bible.

And the simple fact remains that He said this because of the importance of what was written. That is not philosophy, but a basic Bible Principle we should give attendance to. Anything taught by anyone, whether it be in a basement, or the grandest Sanctuary man can build, must be tested according to the Word of God.

I do agree with your position concerning the statement...

“One cannot be against that which the Bible is silent about.”

Because we have numerous issues not directly referred to in Scripture. However, we do not go to the opposite extreme and justify creation of views, doctrine, or practice which can be seen to violate the teachings of Scripture. In other words, "One cannot be for something that the Bible is silent on, if it violates what Biblical Doctrine is not silent about."

And Scripture is not silent about the doctrines of men, which is where I think that Catholics and non-Catholics inevitably butt heads, both sides perceiving the other to be in violation of what seems clear to both sides, lol.

So in view, in my response my hope is to stress the importance of proper interpretation, and point out that your argument (basement fellowship) doesn't support a position where starting a fellowship in a basement is a radical or un-biblical effort, because the very thing you question (your/the person starting the fellowship's interpretation/s) is the very thing that determines whether this effort is valid. And, the only way to validate or invalidate that interpretation is to of course consult Scripture. Not those things Catholics and non-Catholics debate over in regards to practice.

Another intention is to also give an example of quoting procedure, which, if you get in the habit of practicing, will not just benefit your antagonist, but yourself as well, and I think you'll be glad you learned.


God bless.

 

Briefly? I posted one small paragraph. You posted 7 lengthy responses. That is why I didn't respond in the first place. If you take issue, and I know you do, then be more concise or go more slowly. How do you expect anyone to respond to all that you have written?

The RCC cannot take any credit for the Trinity. That is absurd. It is the Bible that teaches the trinity. The word trinity is not found in the Bible, but the concept is. Therefore we have no reason to believe that the concept of the triune Godhead was not believed by early Christians such as the Apostle John. Perhaps the word "trinity" may have been coined by some Catholic theologian, but that is irrelevant. The doctrine is from the Bible not from the RCC, and existed long before the RCC. The Bible is our guide, not the RCC.

As a matter of basic history, it was long before the fourth century that the ECF believed the trinity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
--You are definitely wrong here.

There is too much to list all at one time, and much of it is pure superstition without any Biblical authority whatsoever.

It must be within Biblical guidelines. All of our doctrine and faith is measured by the Bible. It is our sole authority.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

But does it fall within the moral guidelines of the Bible? Yes. Is there anything in the Bible to condemn it? No.

There were guidelines how the Holy Spirit gave us our NT. One verse of Scripture very important to this is:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--This verse is written to the Apostles. He would bring into their remembrance all things. The Holy Spirit does not teach us all things. We cannot claim that. But those writing the Scriptures knew all things--word for word what Jesus told them, and what God wanted them to write. They also knew which books were inspired and which were not according to 2Pet.3:15,16.

I have looked carefully at this matter. In summary you spoke of "the lesser of two evils." But what that really boils down to is relativism or situation ethics, that is to say: "I will make up my ethics/moral according to the situation I am in. Either contraception is right or wrong. If it wrong in this society, then it is wrong in every society. If the Ten commandments (thou shalt not murder) is applicable here, then it is applicable everywhere. It not according to the culture or situation that I live in.

 

Hi, Darrell-

Thanks for the formatting help! As I said, I don't have much experience at all in this type of forum.

For the record, I wasn't saying I could just start a little "church" in my basement and still be considered Catholic. If I did such a thing I would be disregarding basic Catholic teaching. On the other hand, such an act would be quite consistent with basic Protestant Philosophical Biblicism. Sorry I wasn't clear there. I did not intend to suggest that doing such a thing would be consistent with Catholic theology, ecclesiology, etc.

Also, your point about holding people accountable to their interpretation of Scripture is precisely the point I am getting at: Who's to say what is and what is not the "proper interpretation"? There is no non-Catholic principle by which such determinations can be made. The very principle of unity established by Christ (the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church) is that principle which, when deserted, leaves Christians with nothing but private interpretation. Like-minded Christians may find themselves in agreement with one another and fellowship for a time. But eventually differences arise. Schism develops. And new denominations are formed. Denominational Christianity finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they may maintain their view of Scripture which they view to be right and sacrifice a broad fellowship for its sake. Or they may compromise doctrine so that they may broaden their umbrella for inclusion’s sake. Only the Church founded by Christ has a principled means of supernatural unity by which it functions. For among non-Catholics, when I "submit only when we agree, the one to whom I submit is me." That is a phrase I read at another website somewhere. It suggest the notion that when we "submit" to our non-Catholic ministers and pastors, such activity is really nothing more than symbolic due to the fact that if we come to disagree with them we simply leave their communion (having concluded that we are faithful to the Scriptures while they have erred). While Catholics, on the other hand, have the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” of the Creeds as their principle of unity which isn’t just an idea any more than being an ancient Israelite was solely dependent upon one’s theological views and beliefs.

Does that make sense? If not, why not?

About this: But, Darrell, the very Scriptures to which you appeal speak of the Church as authoritative, as well. I have said much about this in previous comments here. I know I've written a lot here on this thread. But if there's one point I have tried to make it is one that directly speaks to this matter. The Lord sends the Apostles out with His Authority. They are, as men, literally "God-breathed" (John 20). They AND Scripture have authority. Where, for the non-Catholic does that Apostolic Authority lie (Which is the authority of a vicar or steward)? It is, therefore, a limiting of the Scriptural data concerning authority to simply say it resides in Scripture when 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 and Luke 10:16 say otherwise. This is why to answer your query Biblically, one would have to account for Ephesians 3:10, 1st Timothy 3:15, and John 20:20-23. In other words, a truly Biblical answer to your question is Scripture, Tradition, and Apostolic Authority, which, again was first conferred upon Matthias (Acts 1) and has since been past on according the Sacrament of Holy Orders. When you pose the question "What are we going to be looking at in order to conclude that interpretation is correct, and that separation is justified?", if you're going to be consistent, then the your answer to that question (Scripture) must also be found in the Scriptures. And this is where your fundamental problem lies. This is what I discovered as a Baptist: I learned that my test for truth (which was that something had to be taught in the Bible) was itself not taught in the Bible. My "Biblical test" failed itself. Some people, when they discover this, go the route of Bart Ehrman and so many others these days by losing their faith altogether. But what they should do is adjust their "doctrinal test," not dismiss the possibility of identifying God's will altogether. The Bible didn't come to us alone. And neither should we attempt to approach it in isolation. It came to us within a Church whose existence pre-dated the writing of the New Testament texts themselves. Again, I know I've written a lot here. But if you're up to it, go and re-read what I've said. Apart from being too wordy, I hope that I have at least begun to present a few ideas that may shake the philosophical (and not Biblical) foundations of Biblicism.

About this paragraph: Yes we certainly see in Christ's ministry a powerful witness to the authority of Scripture. And if a person reads the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he'd see that the Church upholds that lofty status of the very Word of God.

About this paragraph: Okay, we may butt heads. But that doesn't mean that the Scriptural data are not capable of settling the matter.



Another intention is to also give an example of quoting procedure, which, if you get in the habit of practicing, will not just benefit your antagonist, but yourself as well, and I think you'll be glad you learned.

I think your comments here, since they're based upon my unclearly presenting my position, don't exactly speak to what I was intending on getting across to you. You're speaking to the heart of the matter, though, by repeating your error in saying "...the only way to validate or invalidate that interpretation is to of course consult Scripture." Again, this is the very unBiblical principle by which you judge the validity of various doctrines- the problem, as I said, is that it fails its own test..

Again, thanks for the time and the kindness!

In Him,

Herbert

 

They were both inventions that came well after the Bible was written. That is the first thing that must be admitted. That is what puts them outside of the Bible. Now look for principles to guide us whether they are right or wrong. It is obvious that abortion is wrong for abortion is murder.

This is a needless bifurcation on your part. Even the Bible makes a distinction between that which is holy and that which is profane, or that which sanctified and that which is not. So not, you are not correct here.
Paul discusses many intimate things in 1Corinthians chapter seven that might make some men blush.
He would have had no problem discussing contraceptives had that been one of the problems in Corinth. The church did have many problems concerning marriage, remaining single, widows, etc. They lived in a different time with different expectations. They didn't live in sprawling cities in two-bedroom apartments on low income wages.

This authority, as far as the RCC is concerned, never started with the Apostles. The RCC had its beginnings with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century and not before!! Constantine introduced paganism into Christendom at that time and made it an official religion of the state. Thus it became a state-religion, and still is in many nations. It is a pagan apostate religion. It can easily be proved through Biblical references alone can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Peter was never in Rome as a leader of a church. It is only tradition that says that he went there as a prisoner to die. And that is the only reason that Peter was in Rome. That alone should shake the confidence of any Catholics trust in the RCC, for it stands on a shaky foundation. It is not the true "Church."
Secondly, there is no true "Church," for there is no "church" whatsoever. You need to study ecclesiology. The word translated "church" is ekklesia, a Greek word meaning "assembly," and can only be translated assembly or congregation. Christ never established a universal or invisible church. He only established "churches." The "First Baptist Church at Jerusalem," was a local church. The church in Samaria was a local church. The church at Antioch was a local church. They had no connection with one another. Paul established over 100 churches on three different missionary journeys, all independent one of another. There is no "Church" spoken of in the Bible, only churches, as the word ekklesia means.

After Judas died, he was replaced by Matthias in Acts chapter one. After that there were no successors to the apostolic office. Revelation 21 speaks of the 12 walls of the New Jerusalem with the names of the 12 apostles written on the foundations. Often the apostles are simply referred to as "The Twelve."
Paul refers to himself as "one born out of due time." He alone was accepted as an apostle by "The Twelve" for he met all the qualifications:
Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
--He had to be a witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The leaders of the RCC are not.

Christ never changes. The Bible never changes. The RCC changes always. My faith in the Bible and its promises remain sure and steadfast. Again the RCC doesn't even know the meaning of what it is to be born again, the most important essential of entering into the kingdom of God. Pitiful!

True.

You are suggesting that using contraceptives is immoral. But when the Pope suggests it for a similar reason it is not immoral. Look at your duplicity. This is arrogance and hypocrisy on your part. And that is why I say that either it is a change of doctrine or the Pope going against established doctrine: Which one?

Polygamy has always been condemned and is out-rightly condemned by the Bible. This is a no brainier.

What is according to the "Church " is irrelevant; what is done according to the Bible is what is important. The "Church" does not have the teaching of Christ. The RCC has a catechism which teaches people how to go to hell. They don't know the meaning of what it is to be born again. The RCC is not the pillar and ground of the truth. They hardly know what the truth is.

 

Your problem, Herbert, is that you view unity as being organizational. The unity of Christ's Church is spiritual. The enemy of the Church is denominationalism and the Church of Rome, for all its delusions of grandeur, is just a big denomination. For years it maintained its illusion of unity by persecution, and now it can't do that any more (except in odd places like parts of Mexico) it is shedding members like crazy.

Each church should be independent but tied to each other in a shared commitment to the Creeds and the five solas of the Reformation. Smaller differences can then be passed over in love.

 

Hello Herbert, glad to help, and as I said, as you get better aquainted with the forum you'll be glad you took the time to learn the functions they have given us. This is the only forum I know of that has the highlight function that allows it to be taken directly to the response.

And I have to be going in a few minutes, so will get to what I can.

I understood your example, lol, and pointed out you would be violating common Catholic tradition in doing that, and the point was that this undermines the use of the example itself. I point this out, not to offend, but to help you see, when debating a point, it seldom does any good to use hypotheticals that are contrary to the view of the one trying to use it. We see this all the time in most issues. The Post-Trib Rapturist offering an argument that is founded in a false argument (i.e., based on an assumption, like "Pre-Trib view generates a license to sin mentality).

In your example, you establish a baseline with the very thing most Catholics take issue with. This would be like me giving an example that started "Well if was completely under the spell of the leadership of the Church..." lol,

Now I am going back up the page to the original response and going to highlight another portion I want to bring focus to:

Again, we see the opposing approach likened to philosophy. You do realize that Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest trained by Catholics, right? His approach was a result of the training he had undergone. Also, note it is called the Reformation, not the Revolution. Why that is significant is that they weren't necessarily trying to create a "new way," or a new "faith" so to speak, but simply address what they felt was in error. And a primary issue would be abuse of power. If you can tell me you are okay with indulgences, then that would make for an interesting discussion.

Secondly, you might be surprised to learn that many, many Protestants have an approach concerning interpretation which not only resembles that of the Catholic Church, but, comes to some correlating conclusions. That is why I inquired about an historical Eschatological view. I am just as opposed to the approach taken by many Protestants as that of the Catholic. In both is an anti-literalism which I view as being detrimental to a proper interpretation.

Third, the idea that we can just pick up and go start a Church, denomination, fellowship, what have you, is again a false argument. This is not typical among Protestants. On the contrary, most Christians, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Evangelical...are lazy for the most part, and simply adopt the beliefs of their leadership. The Reformation was not the generation of new Theology, or new soteriology, it began as a matter of confronting what was viewed as error on the part of the leadership, and it was doctrinal. But, read Luther's 95 Theses, and you will see a very Catholic fellow here, lol.

So what you are doing is still offering false arguments which have a foundation in the teaching you have adopted. And what we have to do is examine what are credible arguments. The Protestant (and I am not a Protestant, by the way) can just as easily dismiss the work of all Catholic Theologians as philosophy, and they would be presenting a false argument as well. There are those on both sides who are sincere in their faith, and have a reverence for the Word of God which is reflected in their understanding. That doesn't mean that we have to say one side or the other is right, and the other has to be wrong. We look at all aspects, all elements, and agree where one is correct, and agree where one is in error.

And there is error on both sides.

As to the doctrines of the Catholic Church that I take issue with, they can be addressed only in discussion with Catholics, just as my disagreements with Reformed Theology are. As I said, glad you have come along, because it isn't fair for Catholics to be bashed wholesale when there isn't one around to defend himself or his faith. There are a lot of preconceived notions on both sides, and both sides do a disservice to those of both groups who are sincere born again believers.

So, going back to your hypothetical, there is nothing wrong, in my view, with someone starting a fellowship in their basement, lol. R.C. Sproul, a prominent Reformed Theologian, has confessed to having thoughts of doing just that (though he did not specify his basement, lol).

Now, if someone did do that, we get back to an original point made: how would we judge that group?

Being Catholic, you yourself would judge that group based on a separation from the Catholic Church. In your view you would demand they come under the authority of the Catholic Church, right? In order for this to be a credible part of the Body of Christ.

It wouldn't matter what their doctrine was, right?

You tell me, am I right? Would you bypass their doctrine and focus on that point?

Okay, going to try to get to a little more, and apologize for not having time to address this post in fuller detail.


God bless.

 

And that is the point of the typical Bible Student...we already know Who is to say what's proper and what isn't: God.

But you have to take into account the fact that it was the Word of God, the Hebrew Scriptures that Christ Himself appealed to in regards to authority. When He taught, rebuked, corrected, and even prophesied...He did so on the basis of what had already been said.

And we see a consistency in His teaching and the Word of God.

So here is what I will do, in order to turn this attention to a focus on this very point, which in my experience seems to be one of the most important in Catholic/non-Catholic debate and discussion, I am going to appeal to Scripture to support my view that the Word of God holds an authority that no man can lay claim to. I will say my approach to interpreting Scripture is an examination of the text with an attempt to maintain context, and not neglecting historical significance.

But, I will let you decide which passage you feel has an interpretation that is exclusive to Catholics. Something that the Protestants have wrong. A couple of suggestions might be salvation and how works correlate to the Work of Christ. Or perhaps something that impacts Eschatology (i.e., the thousand years of Revelation 20).

You choose, Herbert.

I have already given a few passages dealing with the Word of God and it's relation to my own view, so perhaps something that ties both authority and interpretation together.


God bless.

 

Just going to jump down a bit and tackle this one.

First, you create a scenario where the Word of God is reliant on having a representative in order for it to be authoritative. That's not the case. In captivity we see understanding of the Word of God given to Daniel. Now, what is the one aspect that is neglected?

The Spirit of God.

I not only believe, but have every confidence I can show this in Scripture, that man cannot comprehend the first aspect of the spiritual things of God apart from enlightenment. This is true under the Law, it is true in this Age. And in this Age there is the specific Ministry of the Comforter which has as a singular focus enlightening men to the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We would not have to look far to find examples of poor exegesis and ridiculous conclusions that result. We do not for an instant ascribe God being part of that.

If you mean, in John 20, the disciples are "God-breathed" because the Lord breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Ghost, well, I will have to take issue with your interpretation, lol.

This is a great topic to begin with, Herbert. And I will just give you one question to consider, and then have to get going: when did the disciples receive the Holy Ghost?

This is an issue I constantly debate on this and every forum I go to. Now, we can, together, bring our understandings together, examine them, and apart from any leadership, apart from any denominational affiliation, come to some conclusions that are based on what can't be argued...the Word of God. For example, if I say "The Bible teaches there is One God," you probably wouldn't debate that, right (and I am Trinitarian, by the way, so not denying the Trinity, just simply stating what I see to be an incontrovertible truth taught throughout Scripture)?

So I am going to say that an interpretation that John 20 (and this is assuming I have correctly assumed which part of John 20 you are referring to, lol) is teaching that the disciples are "God-breathed," or, inspired, is an easily enough corrected misinterpretation.

And again, it is not said to offend, but is just a good example of the underlying and focal point of our discussion.

And have to get going, so will just say we are of like minds. Don't worry about length, it separates those who want to have discussion, and those who want to chat, lol. You won't hear me complaining about how long your posts are.

Have to get going, so might suggest this as a start to examining the Authority of Scripture and how that pertains to men.


God bless.