Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Holy Spirit and Me
Standing on My Head ^ | 11/30/10 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Posted on 12/02/2010 9:19:19 AM PST by marshmallow

"All you need to do," said the Mormon missionary at the door, "Is to pray to the Holy Spirit before you sit down to read the Book of Mormon. Say, 'Open my eyes, my mind, my heart, and if what I read is true, make me realize it in my heart of hearts.'" Then guess what? The new convert says, "I prayed that prayer and as I read my eyes really were opened and I realized that the whole thing was true!!" Gawrsh! Amazing!!

Of course, this is only a short hop from "If you close your eyes and wish hard enough your wish will come true." or "If you believe in fairies clap your hands and Tinkerbell will come back to life..." Nevertheless I have heard this same argument used by Catholics, Evangelicals and other Christians of all stripes. "If you simply pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance" says Brian, my Baptist preacher friend, "and then read the Bible with an open heart you will see that the Catholic Church is in error and my religion is right." Uh huh. My reply was, "Brian--that is exactly what I have been doing for the last twenty years and the Holy Spirit led me to become Catholic."

We have a very individualistic understanding of the Holy Spirit in our individualistic age. It amounts to individual, unique divine inspiration. Each person, filled with the Holy Spirit will "just know" what is true. Hogwash. Every Christian operates within a theological framework. We all select and interpret the Scripture within a particular theological and denominational tradition. We view Scripture through a lens. The Scriptures are filtered and interpreted to us through the extra-Biblical sources that we access--the preaching we hear, the Bible studies we attend, the books on the faith we read, the radio and TV we listen to, the influence of family and friends, the course we take, the conversations we have, the cultural assumptions with which we live. For the non-Catholic this web of 'interpretative authorities' are unacknowledged and even denied. They want to believe that they really do "read the Bible on it's own with an open and sincere heart as led by the Holy Spirit" and that all their views come from this simple, straightforward reading of Scripture. Because they deny the extra-Biblical sources of interpretative authority these sources are even more powerful in their lives.

This is why the Catholic Church insists that an acknowledged, extra-Biblical interpretative authority is necessary. You're going to have such an authority whether you know it or acknowledge it or not. Might as well have one that you know, that you acknowledge; an authority that transcends your own limited time and place and culture, and authority bigger and wiser and smarter and older than you, and one that claims to be directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Catholics certainly believe in the individual's infilling with the Holy Spirit, but we hold this in balance with the equally important truth that the Church herself is inspired and filled and guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth, and as such is a living, moving, breathing, Spirit filled organism--against which the gates of hell will never prevail. It is this Spirit filled Church which provides the balance and ballast for our own individual experience of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit-filled Church which provides the correction and qualification of our claims. It is the Spirit-filled Church which validates God's guidance in our lives and it is the Spirit filled lives of the saints, the teaching of the Church and the liturgy of the Church which deepen, broaden, complete and sacramentally seal the personal infilling of the Holy Spirit.

This is why the illustration of Pentecost above is so vivid and real. It shows the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the tongues of flame do indeed touch each individual, but this experience takes place in the context of a temple, the apostolic church gathered together around the Mother of God--and it is only in this fellowship that the individual experience of the Holy Spirit can be objectively validated and confirmed.

The rest is sentimentality.


TOPICS: Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/02/2010 9:19:21 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
This is why the Catholic Church insists that an acknowledged, extra-Biblical interpretative authority is necessary

And this is why Protestants believe that such “necessity” is man made and allows for corruption to enter into the church. God provided his word to us and for us and provides all sufficiency.

2 posted on 12/02/2010 9:25:06 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
For the non-Catholic this web of 'interpretative authorities' are unacknowledged and even denied.

Hogwash ... to the extreme.

3 posted on 12/02/2010 9:26:56 AM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

LOL! QED!


4 posted on 12/02/2010 9:28:23 AM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
And this is why Protestants believe that such “necessity” is man made and allows for corruption to enter into the church. God provided his word to us and for us and provides all sufficiency.
Is that why, do you think, there are over 33,000 "Christian" denominations?
5 posted on 12/02/2010 9:29:30 AM PST by mlizzy (Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Of course, we don’t know Hebrew or Greek, or even begin to understand the theroetical and historical context in which these things were writen ... but hey we just do a prayer to the Holy Spirit and our horrible “living translation” of the Bible will convey everything perfectly!


6 posted on 12/02/2010 9:30:24 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Got it ... the extrabiblical sources the catholic church uses are more reliable that those used by non-catholics ... because ... they are catholic extrabiblical sources.

Just a load of self-contradictory tripe ...

Why beat around the bush? ... just say “The catholic church is correct because its the catholic church” and be done with it.


7 posted on 12/02/2010 9:30:24 AM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Of course, we don’t know Hebrew or Greek, or even begin to understand the theroetical and historical context in which these things were writen ... but hey we just do a prayer to the Holy Spirit and our horrible “living translation” of the Bible will convey everything perfectly!


8 posted on 12/02/2010 9:30:37 AM PST by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
Of course, we don’t know Hebrew or Greek, or even begin to understand the theroetical and historical context in which these things were writen

You're joking right? I admit that I seldom understand catholic humor.

9 posted on 12/02/2010 9:33:11 AM PST by dartuser ("The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has limits.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
And this is why Protestants believe that such “necessity” is man made and allows for corruption to enter into the church. God provided his word to us and for us and provides all sufficiency.

While you might quibble with his exact wording, the truth is that Fr. Longenecker's overarching point is correct.

I'm sure you've met plenty of folks for whom the "Holy Spirit" has a way of just happening to go along with what they wanted in the first place. Perhaps that's even happened a time or to to you, as it has to me.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, how we receive and interpret Scripture, really is guided by various factors in our own lives.

A church may not be a perfect guide -- being populated by humans, how could it be? But it's almost always a more reliable guide than the nice folks on TV or wherever.

10 posted on 12/02/2010 9:37:46 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I propose changing the term Church to Quibble..
As in what Quibble do you belong to..

There little doubt that, there are many quacks Quibbling queerly..

11 posted on 12/02/2010 9:52:00 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

>> This is why the Catholic Church insists that an acknowledged, extra-Biblical interpretative authority is necessary.

It remains extremely convenient that they use that “extra-Biblical interprative authority” find themselves in exclusive possession of “extra-Biblical interprative authority”.

It seems to be an interpretation that is at least a little self-serving.

SnakeDoc


12 posted on 12/02/2010 9:56:40 AM PST by SnakeDoctor ("They made it evident to every man [...] that human beings are many, but men are few." -- Herodotus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I propose changing the term Church to Quibble.. As in what Quibble do you belong to..

LOL.... There's an uncomfortably large measure of truth in that....

13 posted on 12/02/2010 10:01:02 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
It is true that if you ask God for Wisdom, He will give it.

But God has already given us much wisdom in scripture and for us to ignore it or be unaware of it, is like a starving man asking for food and ignoring the feast before him, or the proverbial man on the roof during the flood, ignoring the two boats and the helicopter that God sent his way, insisting that God would save him.

The problem with the Mormon approach is that they typically ask you to pray and see if you feel peace. Well the very act of being still before God and praying and asking God for direction, brings a sense of peace. But that peace may not be the answer to the question you are asking, the way Mormon's imply it is.

Scripture says Scripture is of no private interpretation. We are commanded to fellowship with each other. And one of the key reasons is that a group can often help put scripture in context of other scripture and reach the correct interpretation. Scripture commended one group of Christians for "searching the scripture to see if these things were true".

The Catholic hierarchy has resulted in errors, because it lacks this type of group interpretation. That top down hierarchy led to the abuses that resulted in the Protestant revolution.

14 posted on 12/02/2010 10:12:14 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Interesting read -

I do have to disagree though (as any Baptist worth my weight would do ..)

“For the non-Catholic this web of ‘interpretative authorities’ are unacknowledged and even denied. They want to believe that they really do “read the Bible on it’s own with an open and sincere heart as led by the Holy Spirit” and that all their views come from this simple, straightforward reading of Scripture. Because they deny the extra-Biblical sources of interpretative authority these sources are even more powerful in their lives. “

I think there are as many non-Catholics who feel this way as there as many Catholics who really believe if they just do the Sacrements they’ll see heaven .. not truly grasping the need to have an individual relationship with God and the Son ..

The thing I found MOST interesting about the article is that it is written by Dwight Longenecker .. I knew him at Bob Jones University and have often wondered what happened to him ..


15 posted on 12/02/2010 10:28:01 AM PST by pamlet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

“I propose changing the term Church to Quibble..
As in what Quibble do you belong to..”

Hate to quibble but shouldn’t it be
‘To which Quibble do you belong?

:)

Will


16 posted on 12/02/2010 11:42:52 AM PST by will of the people
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: will of the people

Well thats indeed a queer quibble from a quack..


17 posted on 12/02/2010 12:02:22 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mlizzy; taxcontrol; dartuser
The willingness of Catholics like yourself to use such a polemic shows how free Catholics are to promotes ignorance.*

Upon what basis are we to ascertain that Rome is the one true church whose magisterium is protected from error when speaking in union with the pope to the whole church on faith and morals?

However, the premise of Rome is that because relying upon the Scripture as the supreme authority often engenders division, while implicit trust in an Assuredly Infallible Magisterium (AIM) results in unity, then the latter is correct. And yet apart from infallible teachings, like in evangelical churches (who actually show more unity in core values and doctrine) Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, though who knows all of which ones are infallible.

Although RC's appeal to fallible human reasoning to seeking to convince me from the Bible to believe in the Assuredly Infallible Magisterium which is protected from the fallible nature of when they speak according to their Infallibly Declared Formula, (if they do say so themselves), yet once one becomes a Catholic he/she is not longer to search the Scriptures to ascertain the verity of what her church has defined, or to objectively examine claims to the contrary.

However, the fact is that God Himself reasons with men in seeking to convince them, (Is. 1:18; Acts 17:2) and abundant appeals to the authority of Scripture, including reproving those who presumed, like Rome, an authority over the Scriptures. Implicit trust in an Assuredly Infallible Magisterium is not how unity was achieved in the Bible, nor is unity by itself a goal of the Godly, as division is actually necessary because of truth, and is better than unity in error.Instead, unity is the result of God affirming His truth to those who hear and obey it, and thus the most essential unity is that of the "unity of the Spirit," (Eph. 4:3) resulting from faith in the truth which the established and infallible Scriptures teach.

And apart from infallible teachings, like in evangelical churches (who actually show more unity in core values and doctrine) Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, though who knows all of which ones are infallible.

The Divine inspiration of Scripture is affirmed by both of us, and which is affirmed to be assuredly infallible, but which appeals to human understanding for assurance, (1Jn. 5:13) and affirms being like a noble Berean to determine how know that he/she is listening to this nebulous "Living Voice of the Holy Ghost." and to which God provides other attestation which complements, not contradicts it.

But this means we affirm the core essentials we both concur on, as being truths revealed by the Holy Ghost to the Church, being well substantiated by the Scriptures, while contending against those who deny them, which is typically the result of effectively exalting the authority of mortal men and or an office above the Scriptures. And thus we also contend against those teaching of Rome that also commit the error of the Pharisees. Mk. 7:6-13)

The following is from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html See also http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/look-unity-argument-just-doesnt-work.html Tuesday, December 15, 2009

*The special pleading of Sola Ecclesia-ists' claims to unity


A favored argument against Sola Scriptura frequently used by our friends in the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Just look at Protestantism! It's a mess, of 22,000 25,000 30,000 33,000 58 gazillion denominations!"
What are they saying? Mostly that Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith is insufficient to bring about institutional, organisational unity to the church of Jesus Christ. And of course, Christ would obviously want His church to have institutional, organisational unity! Evidently, setting the Scripture alone up as the sole infallible final rule of faith for the church doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to. Ergo, Sola Scriptura is false.

I've created this crude and very maladroit drawing to illustrate.


Let's analyse, then, the alternatives of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Now, we of course like to accuse them of Sola Ecclesia; that is, we contend that their sole infallible final rule of faith is Whatever The Church® Says. But they don't like it when we say that, so let's be conciliatory and lay the contention aside. Their "real" rule of faith is Apostolic Tradition, which includes written and unwritten tradition from the apostles, both in Scripture and in other places such as the lived-out faith of the church, the liturgies, the writings of church fathers down through the years, etc.
Notice that, like the Scripture, this too forms a corpus with limits. The Da Vinci Code is not part of Apostolic Tradition. Neither is the Qur'an, nor is The Audacity of Hope (though, depending on which Roman or EO priest you ask, that last one might be close). We and others have contended many times, rightly, that the limits to the Roman and EO Canons of Scripture are not only poorly defined but actually non-existent. It is also indisputable that one's presupposition of an infallible interpreter (whether she be Rome or EOC) will govern which little-t traditions are actually accepted, promoted if you will, to Big-T Sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus forming the basis for Roman or Orthodox dogma, leaving the little-t traditions to rot by the wayside, relegated to "Well, he was just speaking as a private theologian" or "That was just his opinion" status.
But let's leave all of that aside and grant that there is one big and awe-inspiring God-given Verbum Dei corpus of Scripture and Tradition that is the proper rule of faith for the church of Jesus Christ.

The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.

The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?
Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special.

So let me break this down as clearly as I can. "The Protestant Church" does not exist. Self-named "Protestant churches" vary so widely in doctrine and authority as to make points of comparison impossible to ascertain. If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this? How different from each other are the churches that hold to Scripture alone as rule of faith, and how different from each other are the churches that hold to "Sacred Apostolic Tradition" as rule of faith? Answer that and you'll know one reason why we consider all this talk about how Tradition and Magisterium make for superior church unity to be just that - talk.

18 posted on 12/02/2010 12:19:24 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pamlet; marshmallow

Both sides often misconstrue each others unsubstantiated beliefs, and that “ non-Catholics reject ‘interpretative authorities’ and so all thy they really need to do is “read the Bible on it’s own with an open and sincere heart as led by the Holy Spirit,” and that all their “views come from this simple, straightforward reading of Scripture” is neither the historical or today’s position on sola Scriptura, which is not “Solo Scriptural, but it most essentially means that while the Bible materially provides for the church and its teaching office, the Scriptures alone are the supreme doctrinal authority but which all is judged, as it is the only source that is affirmed to be wholly inspire of God and thus assuredly infallible.

And while these writings requires interpretation, so do Rome’s pronouncements, and thus one cannot escape interpretation, but the Bible is formally sufficient in providing the truth needed for salvation and to make one perfect in every good work, (2Tim. 3:1-17) although like food, to be effectually, other body parts are needed.

And while born again evangelical Christians (though they are no others) are marked by “hearing from God” as they read the Scriptures, they idea that the get their doctrine this way is absurd, and in fact survey after surveys shows that they are more unified in core moral values and truths than Catholics.

“Because they deny the extra-Biblical sources of interpretative authority these sources are even more powerful in their lives.”

Although this is increasingly a problem in some churches, it is evident that no type of churches contend more (in relation to size) against those who disagree with the core essentials (as in the Nicene Creed) we both agree on than fundamentalist evangelical types. And those who deny them also, like Rome, effectively hold a man and or office as the superior doctrinal office.


19 posted on 12/02/2010 12:43:29 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Unity itself is not a goal of the Godly, but an effective unity that is of the Spirit, which depends upon God’s confirming His truth in those who believe, not implicit trust in mortals. It is the church of the living God that is manifest as His, not its institutionalized counterpart despite what it may autocratically proclaim.

I also came across this the other day, for what is worth,

Synergy,

In the context of organizational behavior, following the view that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its best individual member. These conclusions are derived from the studies conducted by Jay Hall on a number of laboratory-based group ranking and prediction tasks. He found that effective groups actively looked for the points in which they disagreed and in consequence encouraged conflicts amongst the participants in the early stages of the discussion. In contrast, the ineffective groups felt a need to establish a common view quickly, used simple decision making methods such as averaging, and focused on completing the task rather than on finding solutions they could agree on.

Also,

Group think is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in cohesive group, when the member’s strivings for unanimity override their motivation to appraise realistically the alternative courses of action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy


20 posted on 12/02/2010 12:53:24 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Good points all.


21 posted on 12/02/2010 1:09:20 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; r9etb

Actually, if this argumentation is the result of the submision to Rome then it is an argument against it.

Longenecker seeks to broad brush all non-Catholics together, as if Anglicans are actually pouring over their Bibles, while he equate the pure subjectivism of Mormon proselytism with his former baptist teacher who told him to prayerfully search the Scriptures, and which method he either implicitly sanctions by saying it led him to Rome, or he was led by the Holy Spirit to Rome by the using the same fallible human reasoning he censures as unreliable!

And then in its place and he advocates “one that claims to be directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.” And although this authority can claim more historicity than the Mormonic “living prophet,” its “infallible” interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition are no more open to debate or requires demonstrable Scriptural warrant than theirs are, and in reality its authority rests upon its own proclamation. According to its interpretation, only its interpretation can be right in any conflict.

Thus we are much back to square one, and the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome can communally but autocratically channel truth just like the autocratic Protestant he characterizes as doing. Except that for Rome this also includes infallibly tweaking the concept of tradition* from what was understood early on, as well as defining “unanimous consent of the Fathers”** to make something much less than that.

The difference here is that the authority of the apostles, who appealed to human consciences by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) and who added to a yet open canon, was established by a purity and teaching that conformed that which was written (unlike such things as praying to an heavenly object besides God), with abundant supernatural attestation, (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Acts 17:2,11; 28:23)and was not based upon formulaic assuredly infallibility.

Ad paradoxically, those who contend for Sola Scriptura will agre that the modern trend toward baptized subjectivism is contrary to Scripture, and that eccelsial community and its magisterium is necessary for perfection, but that only the Scriptures are infallible, and teaching is established as authoritatve by its conformity with Scripture and ts attestation.

*http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html
**http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf


22 posted on 12/02/2010 2:22:30 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Longenecker seeks to broad brush all non-Catholics together, as if Anglicans are actually pouring over their Bibles

1. "Poring" not "pouring."

2. Quit with the broad brush yourself -- many of us Anglicans really do pore over our Bibles.

I agree, though, Longenecker does tend toward the use of broad brushes and strawmen -- I've taken issue on those grounds with several of his previous articles. It kinda makes sense, if this Longenecker is the same guy pamlet knew at Bob Jones University -- the zeal of a convert has to be taken into account.

In his defense, though, Longenecker is correct about the dangers of individual interaction with what one believes to be the Holy Spirit. It's easy to mistake our own desires for the urging of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we must acknowledge and be wary of Satan's ability to mimic the feel of the Holy Spirit, to lead us astray.

Those are real and serious dangers, and Longenecker is quite correct in stating the need for something outside our personal interaction with Scripture and the Holy Spirit, to ensure that we're not being led astray.

The Church exists to provide that balance, in large part through traditions and teachings that have been guided by the Holy Spirit. That's one of the primary purposes of the Church (denomination carefully not specified), which Jesus Himself instituted.

Longenecker certainly does not claim a Church-only approach; rather, he makes the same basic point: "Catholics certainly believe in the individual's infilling with the Holy Spirit, but we hold this in balance with the equally important truth that the Church herself is inspired and filled and guided by the Holy Spirit."

I don't particularly agree with his assertion that only the Catholic Church is qualified to do that, but I do agree with the general idea of the Church acting as a buffer, and that requires a fair measure of spiritual authority.

The dangers of Churches that emphasize personal relationships (real or perceived) with the Holy Spirit, are reflected in the dizzying number of denominations and ugly schisms among Protestants, that are often driven by personal differences over interpretation of minor points of practice or doctrine -- and those splits are often accompanied by quite un-Christian rancor and outright hatred.

There's probably no one answer, but I think an authoritataive hierarchy is probably necessary. Rome's history shows the dangers of too much concentration of power at the top; contemporary difficulties in the Anglican Communion show the problems with too little central authority.

23 posted on 12/02/2010 3:27:08 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Well, thanks for the sharp eye on spelling! Now you are making me nervous:). .

And yes i was generalizing about Anglicans, but they are one denom and are quite low in stats on Bible reading*, while non-Catholics are very diverse, and many are not necessarily Protestant, as defined by its core essentials.

But in my correction of his characterization i think i made it clear that those who hold to SS do not negate the need and warrant for the Church and its authority and teaching office. The issue is between an autocratic type which itself is effectively superior authority over the Bible due to its assured infallibly claim, versus one that manifests its subjection to the Scriptures, and its means of establishing doctrine.

As for the divisions, the really ugly ones are caused by carnality, like as was the case in Paul’s day, while men like Wesley and Whitefield - who were strongly opposed to each other on the issue of election (the principal cause of division today) - showed that they could both work, even together, in bringing souls to be saved by the same gospel of the grace of God (versus that souls have truly merited eternal life by those very works which have been done in God).

And today such divisions yet work the same, and evangelicals manifest a remarkable trans-denominational unity of the Spirit, although worldliness is increasing across all denoms, and i must overcome better myself (including news mongering on FR ).

Interesting statistics here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4


24 posted on 12/02/2010 5:24:54 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
i made it clear that those who hold to SS do not negate the need and warrant for the Church and its authority and teaching office. The issue is between an autocratic type which itself is effectively superior authority over the Bible due to its assured infallibly claim, versus one that manifests its subjection to the Scriptures, and its means of establishing doctrine

Well, all right, but Jesus' comment that "You will recognize them by their fruits," is applicable here.

It is an interesting and telling phenomenon that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has led to such extensive fragmentation; and that fragmentation seems more likely the tighter a denomination holds to Sola Scriptura.

As a means of "establishing doctrine" the evidence strongly suggests that Sola Scriptura does not produce agreement on doctrine; indeed, quite the opposite -- a result that seems quite inimical to idea of the Church as the Body of Christ.

25 posted on 12/02/2010 6:54:45 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Fruits of holiness and teaching which corresponds to that which is written is a means of establishing doctrine. If eating meat turned the Christians into savages, as PETA seems to convey it does, then we might be in Juadism.

As for SS being the cause of extensive fragmentation, i do not see that the greater a commitment is to such then the more divided they really are, but it is worth analyzing. I think we need to objectively ask how fragmented they really are, despite their doctrinal differences, and if that is preferable to the unity resulting from implicit trust in an assuredly infallible magisterium.

Ask Christians from S. Baptist, Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapels, and such fund. evang. tryps who emphasize the Bible as the supreme authority and how they were saved, and basic doctrinal questions, and their moral views on principal issues. Then do the same to Catholics and see if you have greater unity. Or look at the evidence from multiple sources. Not only do the former overall to manifest unity on many core issues, and more evidence of commitment, but they seem to show greater ecumenicalism, as they come to Christ the same essential way, and realized certain common effects of Holy Spirit regeneration. I myself have met multitudes of believers from various denominations, and realized an instant and unique basic bond due to such. Of course, not all that is in the garage is a car, and many are superficial, but i became born again as a Catholic, and remained as a active Catholic for 6 years (they are the majority in this area), and i know a vast and positive difference between the two.

If we want to restrict this to official views, Rome has a greater paper unity on the very few things she has officially defined, yet Catholics have differing degrees of freedom to disagree with non-infallible teachings, though there is no unity in Rome on what all the infallible teachings are, while many priests and laity disagree with things they are held as infallible. And rendering something as such does prevent the problem of interpretations. In addition, Catholics regularly split from their church, by most typically going to a evang Protestant denomination, far more than the opposite.

Yet if Rome’s unity on an official level shows the superiority of sola ecclesia (the church is the supreme authority on faith and morals) then it still is not necessarily greater than the unity within one single SS denomination.

And as far as quality is concerned, the greatest unity is found in sola ecclesia type bodies, but overall Rome is inferior in this regard to the unity of the Watchtower society and likely Mormons. And truth requires divisions.

So both evangelicals and RC’s officially hold to core essentials, and their people and clergy can disagrees to different degrees on less clear things, while they both disagree on some important issues.

The question should be asked, why don’t Catholics split more often into divisions and why do those who hold to SS do? I think the answer is that the basic unity of the former is in their identity with the Catholic church as an institution, which provides security, but one that implicitly allows a lot of cafeteria Catholics.

Conversely, what allows the divisions among SS type churches is because their basic unity is in their identity as Biblically based born again Christians, and this security in Christ is not threatened by leaving one church to go to another or start one. And the impetus to do so is a result of commitment to truth, versus a more relaxed attitude toward doctrine.

This all should not minimize the real divisions between SS churches, but i think it also shows a unity than is more powerful than their divisions.

More can be said, but it is late. Have a God night.


26 posted on 12/02/2010 9:18:06 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; r9etb

Oops, i should have said pork, and i misspelled Judaism. To tired to proof read more and tomorrows busy.


27 posted on 12/02/2010 9:23:06 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The Holy Spirit and Me
[CATH/ORTH CAUCUS] From Mediocrity to Magnificence: A Meditation on the Fruits of the Holy Spirit
Sins Against the Holy Spirit [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Holy Spirit and Middlemen
The Catholic Charismatic Renewal
The Holy Spirit And Mary (Catholic Caucus)
Benedict XVI's Homily for Solemnity of Pentecost
Pentecost Past and Present

The Purpose of Pentecost: and the New Missionary Age of the Church
Pentecost: the Holy Spirit Comes
Pentecost on Mount Athos (where earthly time is one and the same as the eternal today of heaven)
Vigil of the Pentecost and Whitsunday
The Gifts of the Holy Spirit
The Twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit [Devotional]
Novena to the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit]
The Holy Spirit: Pentecost
The Church's First Novena
Litany of the Holy Spirit for the election of a holy pope.

28 posted on 12/02/2010 9:53:45 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Not self-contradictory. The Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church was handed down verbally, even before any of the Bible was written down) from the apostles to the next bishops and so forth.

Do Christians Need Only the Bible?
[T]radition and [t]radition (and just what is the difference?) [Ecumenical]
What is Holy Tradition?
Why Does The Catholic Church Accept Traditions? [Ecumenical]

A Return to Tradition: A new interest in old ways takes root in Catholicism and many other faiths
Scripture Is Tradition
SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
The Importance of Tradition Today
The Place of Custom and Tradition

Early Church Fathers on (Oral) Tradition - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
Holy Tradition: The Road That Leads Home
On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
Recovering the Catholic Moral Tradition: The notion of happiness
Tradition and Reform

APOSTOLIC TRADITION: Consistency or Contradiction?
Can Vatican II be interpreted in the light of Tradition?
The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
Pope praises Ukrainian-Catholic Church for upholding Sacred Tradition, communion with Seat of Peter
The Shadow Tradition - Magisterium vs Murk

[Catholic] Tradition catching on with Baptists [Ecumenical Ash Wed. Service]
Pope will preside at Ash Wednesday Mass, procession; act will renew ancient tradition
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
Papal Supremacy Is Against Tradition
"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II

29 posted on 12/02/2010 9:56:36 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I will be brief here, but will any of those links provide me with a complete list of all such tradition, or is verbal tradition nebulous?

In any case, being the steward of revelation, which the Jews were explicitly affirmed to be, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) does not make such the assuredly infallibly interpreters of it, which the Jews were not, much less Rome, regardless of her self-proclamation to be so. And by what means are we to ascertain that the claims of Rome are assuredly true?


30 posted on 12/03/2010 6:30:05 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Do you believe the Gospels?

Much of the Holy Tradition came from the apostles. So if one believes the Gospels and St. Paul, then one automatically believes in Holy Tradition.

In fact the Gospel of John says that not everything is written down. Also one of his letters states a similar line.

So if you believe in the Bible then you have to believe in Holy Tradition too because John and others tell us that not everything was written down.


31 posted on 12/03/2010 10:19:03 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I’m 99% sure it’s the same fellow .. doesn’t LOOK like him .. but that was over 30 years ago .. laugh ..

I read his bio on his website and I know it’s him .. actually a very likeable fellow.. and even then he preferred more liturgical services .. (which is kind of interesting because back then our Sunday services at Bob Jones were fairly “high church” for a school with Baptist leanings..)


32 posted on 12/03/2010 2:36:24 PM PST by pamlet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Much of the Holy Tradition came from the apostles. So if one believes the Gospels and St. Paul, then one automatically believes in Holy Tradition.

It seems that you are not well acquainted with the real issues in the debate, as the above is not the issue of contention, but whether being the stewards of revelation confers assured formulaic infallibility. Holding to the supremacy of Scripture does not deny that it was and is a form of "tradition," but that the wholly inspired readings became established as such due to their unique and enduring qualities and the Divine attestation afforded them, just as a true man of God was/is. Because God made Himself real to Abraham and he believed, God supernaturally attested to his faith and overall morality, which established him as a friend of God and through whom a holy nation was born.

Moses was established as "the man of God" due to his holiness and faith which conformed to that which was prior testified to, and to whose authority God mightily supernaturally attested to, and who provided the written law (though Rome's scholars typically hold to the liberal JEDP theory, contrary to what is written). This became the standard by which further revelation was examined by, and likewise as these became progressively established as Holy Writ than they became the standard by which other writings were examined and substantiated by, a principle which is never abrogated. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)

By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, as is evident by references to the Scriptures, though this was not the result of an infallible magisterium. Later, most of the books of the New Testament were widely accepted as Scripture in a relative short time after they were written, and in the succeeding centuries the only remaining disputed books of were almost exclusively those which were rejected by the Jews, which Trent affirmed as Divine when it provided the “first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm; cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390) though this was not exactly the same canon affirmed by such councils as Carthage, but which ended the debate which went on among Roman Catholic scholars right into Trent. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 278, 281-282.“ More .

Such decrees can be surely helpful, but they neither make these writings Scripture nor are the real cause for their enduring volitional acceptance, which is due to their supernatural qualities, and the affirmation God gives to those who trust and obey them. Men may decree what they may, but 1 Co. 4:20 is applicable in principle here, “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." and which establishes both men and writings, although i certainly comes short in what i should/could be.

In fact the Gospel of John says that not everything is written down. Also one of his letters states a similar line.”

True, and to which i more can be referenced, (2Cor. 12:4 Rev. 10:4, etc.), and SS recognizes that, and that Scripture does not contain all there is to know, as it is not “Solo Scriptura,” but as Scripture is the only objective authority which is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God (2Tim. 3:16) thus it alone as the supremer doctrinal authority. And that it is formally sufficient to provide the Truth needed for salvation and holiness, though the body is needed for that truth to be fully effectually, and which church the Scripture materially provides for.

So if you believe in the Bible then you have to believe in Holy Tradition too because John and others tell us that not everything was written down.

Which is just what the Mormon's love to hear, who also invoke this, and interpret history and tradition as validating them.

The problem here is that, unlike Scripture which is a written revelation, often first coming or being soon expressed in writing, (Ex. 7:14; 31:34; Is. 30:8; Jer. 30:2; 36:2) 2Cor. 13:10; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 3:1; 1Thes. 4:9; 2Thes. 3:17; 1Tim. 3:14; Pt. 3:1; 1Jn. 1:4; Jude. 1:3; Rv. 1:1) oral tradition is a nebulous and potential endless source, while for a magisterial office to equate it with Scripture effectively adds to a closed canon, and renders the magister an assuredly infallible and supreme authority over both. Surely the nebulous should judged by the material of God, as God manifested Himself to and as man, and also appealed to Scripture as superior to the Jewish magisterium which presumed to teach unScriptural doctrine. (Mk. 7:6-13; Mt. 22)

The problem then goes back to authority. To reiterate, the authority of men Jesus and the apostles — who added new teachings to an open canon and affirmed that which was establish as Scripture — was established by a holiness and doctrine which conformed to that which was prior established as Scripture, and was mightily attested to by supernatural means. Rome's authority is essentially based upon a claim to formulaic infallibility, that she is speaking infallibility when addressing the whole church, in union with the pope, and which renders her very decree to be infallible, and its criteria infallible. She can claim a Scriptural basis in seeking to justify herself to others, while disallowing that assurance can be had by this means, (contra. 2Tim. 3:15; 1Jn. 3:19; 5:13) but an infallible decree renders her immune to correction, and once one is persuaded to assent to Rome, then implicit trust in her is required. And are admonished against objectively examining what Rome has so defined in order to ascertain its truthfulness, and are also warned about listening to those without (and one time were forbidden to debate.)

having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all.” Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means"

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. “The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. were actually once forbidden to engage in debate.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York)

And once you see yourself as assuredly infallible, you tend to go to further excesses if not restrained. Regarding such, Cardinal Avery Dulles stated that “The interpretation given to infallibility in the present document [Mysterium Ecclesiae] is not something that can plausibly be ascribed to churchmen of the early centuries.”

Sorry if this is too long, but it is a critical foundational issue, and i think it should be comprehensible.

33 posted on 12/03/2010 6:08:39 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Well mine isn't long....so we're even. I'm so sorry that you choose not to believe the Holy Scriptures -- for, indeed, they tell us of oral tradition and information being passed face to face.

The Bible is good enough for me here. Why isn't it good enough for you?>

John
Chapter 21
 
25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
 
 

 
2 John
12
9 Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete.
 
 

3 John

13
I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink.
14
Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face.

34 posted on 12/03/2010 10:02:59 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Your reply shows not only a lack of comprehension as to the issue, but of what i clearly stated. Good bye.


35 posted on 12/04/2010 7:58:23 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson