Posted on 10/25/2007 10:43:19 AM PDT by NYer
Fascinating
So I immediately needed to know: is it required of Christians to believe that Genesis is to be taken literally? I asked people and looked around online, and quickly found that there was not unanimous agreement on this. I found people who laid out a pretty good case that, yes, it is required of Christians to believe that Genesis is a literal, blow-by-blow description of events that happened about 6,000 years ago; yet others made a good case that Christians should believe that it is truth conveyed through symbolism. I really couldn't tell who I should believe.
We are required to believe in the literal, historical truth of Genesis. Period.
What we are not required to believe, is that any particular exegete fully comprehends what that literal truth of Genesis actually is: what a "day" is, what kind of day you can have absent the sun, etc. That's all the Church's prerogative.
Genesis 1 was always acknowledged as an extraordinarily difficult text even before the advent of modern science, and St. Augustine famously wrote a book about it in which he sheepishly admitted that he had more questions than answers.
So trust the text absolutely; but be absolutely skeptical of all the exegetes. Until the Church sees fit to pronounce on this definitively, it is all mere speculation....I don't care what camp you are in.
“Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church”
As a Sola Scriptura, I’m not an “atheist”.
It is being a Sola Scriptura that keeps me from becoming a Catholic. Catholic teachings are just that - CATHOLIC teachings and not Biblical teachings.
There you go again ... NYer ... trying to stir the pot with an illogical comment:
“Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church”
A “Sola Scriptura” person is not an “atheist”.
This misguided person is obviously not Bible taught otherwise they wouldn’t be an atheist. I can understand hwy such as person who is ignorant would be attracted to the rituals at the Catholic church ... but knowing better than rituals and traditions won’t save you - stick with the Bible and KNOW I am saved and not through works.
Ping.
Kudos to the author on a brilliant piece...so many issues resonated with my own reversion....among them the inability to trust ones judgment!
The author meant that she used to be an atheist, but then after she investigated Christianity, her problems with Sola Scriptura led her to become Catholic.
She is not saying that Sola Scriptura folks are atheists—which like you say is illogical.
Funny, twenty-five years of being "saved" didn't give me victory over sin, but "rituals and traditions" did.
Hello,
Is the Sola Scriptura Comment in the original, because that’s not the gist I got. I got the gist of “search for authorative centralized theological postion leads atheist to Catholic Church”
Hello,
With all due respect, I think maybe you read the wrong article. I suggest this based on the following points:
* Although I read it quickly, I saw no reference to “rituals” attracting her, yet your comment indicated that is what she suggested.
* The article said she began as an Atheist and her search for God brought her to Scripture - your comment indicates that she was an atheist while searching for Truth, clearly if she was seeking God she was went from Atheist, to Agnositic and was likely some sort of believer while reading scripture.
Now if you re-read the article you will have the opportunity to note that it could easily be titled, “Scripture lead atheist to Christianity” the crux of her Theological position and final arrival into the Catholic Church boils down to whether or not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the ability to teach authoratatively as she was somewhat concerned with the various translations and various constructions of the scriptures.
That said it would seem that she and you differ as to whether a specific body can interpret scripture or whether it is left to the individual.
Either way, saying “Catholic bad, me good” does no one any good. A suggestion would be to politely disagree with the young lady as I am sure she would politely disagree with you (as you will note she never said “Sola Scripture folks bad, me good”).
Thank you for your comment and indulgence.
Duly noted.
The Supreme Court analogy was my exact deduction, too.
Jennifer you need only trust in God and believe in Jesus Christ. John 3:16
Me too! LOL
You mean I'm not as independently brilliant as I thought? Drat this religion of humility!!!! ;)
Great read. If you follow the truth wherever it leads, you’ll eventually end up in the Church.
The essay concludes with a quotation from Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton, a book he wrote in 1908—when he was an Anglican. But in context, he is speaking of authoritative Christian Orthodoxy, and by and large the point stands for the Catholic Church too.
And everything he taught, right?
"if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." --Jesus,
No one suggested this.
Catholic teachings are just that - CATHOLIC teachings and not Biblical teachings.
On the contrary; they are totally biblical.
This misguided person is obviously not Bible taught
And you obviously did not read the post!
She began her search using the Bible and tried to interpret it herself. She met others who told her to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance in interpreting the Scripture. Hence the comment on the title. This is a remarkable testimony to why Sola Scriptura doesn't work. Too many different views and opinions. The word truth appears only in the singular, in Scripture. There can be only one truth - not many.
But of course you are!
Just not "uniquely" ;o>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.