Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
a few people can get back from the cudgel swinging and try to take a look together at the issues which divide -- and do so with the intention N OT to win b ut to be vanquished by the truth.
I know that when somebody says Leo the great was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church there is no intention for the article to be any kind of dialogue with Catholics. We think Simon Peter was the first Pope of the Church (whether or not the term "pope" was in use), and while of course people may disagree, when somebody presents the idea that someone who "reigned" generations after Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, we know right away he's talking about us, not to us.
You are forgetting much of the Bible. Jesus also made fun the disciples by calling them offensive names, pretending to be a cannibal, and telling them to throw away their stuff.
No, you articulate them very well.
I’ve earned praise from you on occasion for my literalism, although I think my “evolutionism” probably dooms my stance fatally in your eyes.
I haven’t worked out my own stance on Creation to my satisfaction...like Augustine I end up asking more questions than I answer. Yet, I am convinced of this. Assuming that God has breathed his Truth into the Sacred Word, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Creation, and assuming that we understand all three correctly insofar as our puny intellect can allow, I do not see how it is in any way possible that these three not harmonize.
To wit
St. Augustine, on the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Book II "Question of the phase in which the moon was made" 15, 30The philosophical underpinnings are there I think. Besides, Augustine postulated just such a process at work with flies and other creatures which he thought were created potentially and not actually during the hexamaeron."God, after all is the author and founder of things in their actual natures. Now whatever any single thing may in some way or other produce and unfold by its natural development through periods of time that are suited to it, it contained it beforehand as something hidden, if not in specific forms and bodily mass, at least by the force and reckoning of nature, unless of course a tree, void of fruit and stripped of its leaves throughout the winter, is then to be called imperfect, or unless again at its origins, when it had still not yet borne any fruit, its nature was also imperfect. It is not only about the tree, but about its seed also that this could not rightly be said; there everything that with the passage of time is somehow or other going to appear is already latent in invisible ways. Although, if God were to make anything imperfect, which he then would himself bring to perfection, what would be reprehensible about such an idea? But you would be quite within your rights to disapprove if what had been begun by him were said to be completed and perfected by another."
Yes Jesus took great joy in ridiculing those closest to him.
And don’t forget that, though they were actually entrusted with the care of GOD, nothing was going to divert Joseph and Mary from focusing on their sex lives.
2 Timothy 3 does not say "sufficient". It says, "profitable" or "useful". The goal is to have the "man of God" perfected, and the scripture is useful for that goal. No one argues otherwise, the scripture is extremely useful.
What else us useful? Why tradition is, that which St. Paul taught Timothy orally (2 Tim. 1:13, 2:2). In fact, St. Paul made a reference to the tradition first in 3:14, and after that he turned his attention to the scripture in verses 15 and following.
The last sentence is apt if one is opposing the “Darwinian notion that since human nature is mere accident that we can by taking thought perfect it in accord with our present conceits. I refer of course to eugenics, and the idea that
scientists have the right to play the role Darwinists deny to God.
“Ping me when you get an answer to this one”
The word translated ‘all’ in the NASB means “each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything”. So an expanded translation would be “(each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything) Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness...
I would also suggest you read White’s entire debate...a paragraph I cut out for space reads, “It is common for Roman Catholic apologists to follow an error made by John Henry Cardinal Newman, with reference to this passage. Indeed, Karl Keating, Patrick’s associate at Catholic Answers, makes the same mistake in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. And he repeated it again only recently during a debate on this subject in Denver during the papal visit. Newman said that if this verse proves the sufficiency of Scripture, it proves too much, for Paul is talking here only of the Old Testament, which would leave the New Testament as an unnecessary addition. But such is not Paul’s point at all. Scripture, Paul’s point is, if it is Scripture at all, is God-breathed. Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon but the nature of Scripture itself as originating in God. All Scripture then, including the New Testament, is God-breathed.”
No need to thank me - you are welcome.
“I would also love to know why, in light of 2 Timothy 3:16, Luther dismissed the Epistle of St. James as the “gospel of straw”
Actually, he wrote that COMPARED TO ROMANS, James is like straw. Since Luther advocated memorization of the entire book of Romans, this isn’t much of a slam.
And no, Luther removed no books from the canon. He questioned the canon, as any Catholic scholar of the day was free to do - as did Erasmus - but his translation included the entire New Testament.
I solemnly promise to look for your posts from now on. Reading them on this thread has been more fun than I have encountered here in a long time. God bless you and yours!
“I DO know that when somebody confuses “substance” with the modern idea of the stuff things are made of that that person is not going to be reliable for a criticism of Catholic thought.”
“(b) In the mind of the Church, Transubstantiation has been so intimately bound up with the Real Presence, that both dogmas have been handed down together from generation to generation, though we cannot entirely ignore a dogmatico-historical development. The total conversion of the substance of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: “This is my body”. These words form, not a theoretical, but a practical proposition, whose essence consists in this, that the objective identity between subject and predicate is effected and verified only after the words have all been uttered, not unlike the pronouncement of a king to a subaltern: “You are a major”, or, “You are a captain”, which would immediately cause the promotion of the officer to a higher command. When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: “This is my body”, the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically deduced from them. The Calvinists, therefore, are perfectly right when they reject the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as a fiction, with no foundation in Scripture. For had Christ intended to assert the coexistence of His Body with the Substance of the bread, He would have expressed a simple identity between hoc and corpus by means of the copula est, but would have resorted to some such expression as: “This bread contains my body”, or, “In this bread is my Body.” Had He desired to constitute bread the sacramental receptacle of His Body, He would have had to state this expressly, for neither from the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread be made to signify the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: “This is my blood”, i.e. the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and hence no longer wine.
Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
You haven't actually answered the question.
Actually, he wrote that COMPARED TO ROMANS, James is like straw. Since Luther advocated memorization of the entire book of Romans, this isn’t much of a slam.
So, ALL Scripture is inspired by God, but SOME Scripture is more profitable than other? And what about the Revelation of St. John?
And no, Luther removed no books from the canon. He questioned the canon, as any Catholic scholar of the day was free to do - as did Erasmus - but his translation included the entire New Testament.
Did it include the entire Old Testament or are you saying he included the ENTIRE Apocrypha?
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating.
This is a very, very bold authoritative statement. As a result, I would expect it to be found clearly and consisely in scripture. Please show me where scripture says this.
As an aside, I do love how many Protestants deny real presence even though Christ states unequivically "this is My body, this is My blood" but will take strained approaches to scriptural interpretation when finding basis for sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.
Let's not forget that IF all Scripture was "self-interpreting" there would be exactly ONE Protestant church. The disagreements that Protestants have over varying interpretation of Scripture is, in itself, proof of the fallacy of "sola scriptura".
Who is supposed to believe this counterhistorical spin?
It says, “16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
Scripture is breathed by God, and useful to teach, reprove, correct and train so that “the man of God may be competent (”having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified), equipped for every good work.”
Or as the NIV translates it, “16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
What is it ‘useful’ for? Teaching and training so that a man may be fully equipped for every good work. Thoroughly equipped seems the best translation, but even adequately equipped (all that is needed) for every good work, not just some.
Verse 14 doesn’t set up “tradition”, but says, “14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it.”
Now if you have traditions handed down from the Apostles, fine. Timothy knew them and was taught by them orally. Indeed, they then WROTE most of the NT! However, what Catholic tradition came from the Apostles? Purgatory? Not hardly. Indulgences? Not hardly. Primacy of the Pope? Not hardly.
Those innovations came about hundreds of years later. Transubstantiation took nearly 1000 years.
If you have some tradition from Peter or Paul, I’m all ears...and that is a metaphor. But traditions from a medieval monk? No thanks - not unless those traditions align with scripture.
“When Luther published his Bible, a layman found the entirety of the canon. Luther expressed his thoughts on the canon in “prefaces” placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. These prefaces were not out of the ordinary. Luther was not engaging in any sort of outrageous scholarly behavior:
“In providing prefaces for the books in the German Bible, Luther was simply following a traditional practice. The inclusion of a prologue illuminating the main thoughts of a treatise was a practice associated with the best in scholarly exposition as far back as Aristotle. Jerome’s Vulgate had prefaces to almost every book in the Bible, plus others for groups of books such as Paul’s epistles and the seven catholic epistles.... The second edition of Erasmus’ New Testament in 1518 began with one hundred twenty folio pages of introductory material.”[13]”
The full article may be read here: Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture By James Swan,
http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a2
For example, the first paragraph of Luther’s intro to James is, ““Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.”
Scriptures are the Bible. The Bible is Scripture.
He bound them in the book, but stated they were not Scripture.
You mean a medieval monk like Martin Luther? You know the monk you came up with this idea of "sola scriptura" which CANNOT be found in the Bible or in ANY Church writings up to this point.
Transubstantiation may have been first DEFINED much later, but that doesn't mean that nobody believed it. There is complete Biblical support for the Real Presence and ZERO support opposing it.
But I'm curious, why are the writings of a medieval monk that YOU believe more valid than the writings of a medieval monk that WE believe? And I am fairly certain that Catholics agree with far more of Martin Luther's writings than non-Lutheran Protestants do. If you don't believe me, consider the FACT that Luther accepted the Real Presence (though his belief differed slightly from transubstantiation), he considered the Blessed Virgin Mary to be ever virgin and the Mother of God (he uses this phrase in the 95 Theses), and the 95 Theses acknowledge that St. Peter was the Pope.
That comment refers to the Apocrypha. Along with Luther and my fellow Baptists, I agree they are not scripture.
Why does Luther want to hide those seven books of Scripture?
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.