Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?

Thoughts of Francis Turretin ^ | 2/19/12 | "TurretinFan"

[Cvengr]

Dogmatic, yes. Bigoted, no.

If we were not truthful and sincere, we would simply accept all other beliefs as equally true, but we know such an acquiescence would be void of love for our fellow man and the consequences if they never come to Christ.

[boatbums]

A site that condones bigotry isn’t one I’m comfortable donating to. Or wasting more time reading. Oh well ... back to your regularly scheduled Catholic bashing.

Seeing as you just signed up a few weeks ago, I don't see how you could have formed such an opinion based on ONE thread. There are numerous devotional thread put out by your fellow Catholics every day and those who have "thin skins" are advised to keep to them. Open religion forum threads - which this one is - can be adversarial but it doesn't mean that Free Republic is a site that "condones bigotry". Rather, it is a place that everyone has the right to voice their opinions as long as they follow the rules like not making a thread "about" a person or getting personal and attributing motives. I don't see that as being bigoted. Sorry if you do. Your peeps give back just as strongly and you did your fair share yourself here.

One thing your veiled threat (if it IS one) will not accomplish, is to make Free Republic into an arm of the Vatican only saying nice things about it at all times. For that, there are multiple sites you might find more to your liking. I, on the other hand, have been a monthly donor for many years now and I love the ability to discuss topics of interest with others all over the world - even if I don't agree with everyone. I wish you well.

[Religion Moderator]

It is you who is ignorant here.

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Religion Moderator]

If "open" Religion Forum threads are offensive to you then ignore them altogether and instead read/post to RF threads labeled "devotional" "prayer" "caucus" or "ecumenical."

Click here for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.

[RobbyS]

Was the Bible meant to be read? yes, to the Jewish people and to the members of the Church. But the men who actually wrote the Scriptures were people of their times and they wrote with the people they knew in mind, people who had heard the “”Story” before, And Sometimes knew Those Who to us are no more than names. We really get a sense of this in the letters of Paul. Like many a letter we write, he does not tell all he knows. He is only having a conversation with friends of his. He alludes to people and places and events who to us are strangers, far more so than any people now living. No matter how much we read, no matter how many language we learn, we will never bring them to life again.

The pope is not a prophet like the Mormon President. Biblical interpretation is not his job. His job is to pass on what the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles. If you had bothered to read the works of by Karol Woijtila or Joseph Ratzinger, you would see that neither pretended to be an authority on the Bible. The former was a philosopher, the latter a theologican. As people, they read the Bible pretty much as you read the Bible, with the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that the Bible is God’s Word. If they interpret the Bible, it as a men of faith, but also as a Catholics. So they hear what the Church teaches . will ponder this, and see how those teachings are confirmed by Scripture. You may disagree. So be it. But, then, who are you to say they were wrong?

[RobbyS]

All this argument goes in a circle. You claim (by what right?) the power to interpret Scripture infallibly. From whole cloth, not as if passing on a tradition of interpretation(which you are in fact but claim otherwise)but as one whom the spirit has empowered to prophesy the truth. All this depends, however, on a book not written by Jesus and arguably not even by the persons who are the putative authors. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not sign their works. We actually don’t know when the books were written, or where or by whom. Not from the text itself. These names are traditional. Either you believe the testimony of the Church, or you do not. Simple as that.

[Apollo5600]

“All this argument goes in a circle. You claim (by what right?) the power to interpret Scripture infallibly. “

No, I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Try again.

“but as one whom the spirit has empowered to prophesy the truth. “

I have not claimed the gift of prophecy. However, it is a fact that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers, giving the saved individual a new mind and a new nature.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This doesn’t mean that we are infallible. It does mean, however, that we are not without help, and that if we knock, God will definitely answer.

You act as if the scriptures are so difficult to understand that none dare read it on their own lest they are deceived. However, you cannot produce some fundamental doctrine that cannot be understood with simple logical and reading comprehension. Perhaps the prophecies of the Book of Revelation would be a bit tough, as one must understand the book of Daniel and speculate on the meanings of the various things John saw. Nevertheless, there is no such difficulty when it comes to the essentials, such as how one is saved, or the existence of hell, or even the Trinity (even though that word is not itself used). You insist on “tradition” and Catholic supremacy because Catholic doctrine required a leap of faith to believe.

It is not possible for you to justify the many perversions of scripture that Catholicism teaches, a few of which I have mentioned in this thread but have never gotten an answer for.

As for each book of the Bible needing to be signed. Plenty of them state who the author is. I will also add that the Popish church didn’t exist when those books were written. They were given to the various churches and used for a long time, long before the heresy of infant baptism (and baptism being required in order to achieve salvation) first reared its ugly head and the conversion of Constantine, who was so afraid concerning the doctrine that baptism is required to wash away sin, that he would not let himself be baptized until just before death (in order to wash away the maximum amount of sin). Here we have the greatest alleged conquest of the Catholic Church who, actually, did not even trust the saving power of Christ or the plain meaning of scripture. It’s possible the latter is because the “Bishops” would not allow him to read the scripture for himself.

[RobbyS]

No doubt that with Baptism comes the indwelling of the Spirit, but when two persons of equal merit, or so it appears, come to different conclusions about a point of doctrine, then how is the matter to be settled except by the Church? Certainly even the Reformers assumed the right to make such judgements. The main different was over who was authorized to make such judgements. All of us, profit by opening and reading Scriptures, but what seems to you as a perversion of Scripture I do not, and it is not because I follow Tradition and you do not, but because you follow a different tradition. As for the matter of the Canon of Scripture , many works other than those now in the New Testament were written about Jesus. Indeed, there was never early on, any formal decision to accept one or the other. Rather there came to be a consensus.

But that is exactly what is meant by Tradition--consensus. And often this was arrived at by synods of Bishops. Arius wracked the Church precisely because he sought by his own authority, or by invoking the authority of others, to define the consensus regarding Father, Son and Holy Ghost. When Constantine convented the Council at Nicaea, they ruled that his notion about Jesus were novelties. That, however, did not end the matter. The Arians made a comeback and were able to persuade the Emperor finally to bring that theologian back to Court. Only his sudden death prevented his return to favor. The Emperor himself was torn between the factions, and his son was an Arian, or Semi-Arian. So not good to bring the matter of his Baptism in the mix. Who don’t know the nature of his faith.

As to that controversy, it took a long while for the Church to work out a doctrine of how to treat those who “fell alway,”especially those who did so in time of persecution. Costantine’ s Ediction of Toleration came after more than two generations of savage persecution by the Roman authorities. It caused great bitterness, and of course permanently divided the African Church, which defied all the efforts of St. Augustine to remedy, until he felt he had to result to compulsion. Some called for re-baptism, but that did not take hold. Then came pubic penance. Then finally private confession and penance.

The Reformation did away with that, or at least in the Reformed tradition. At the root of that was the rejection of the authority of the priesthood to act in the name of the Lord.

[Apollo5600]

“No doubt that with Baptism comes the indwelling of the Spirit, but when two persons of equal merit, or so it appears, come to different conclusions about a point of doctrine, then how is the matter to be settled except by the Church?”

It isn’t, especially since the Catholic Church is wrong about most everything. It is no authority on doctrine, and its repeated failures and crimes over the centuries certainly robs it of any authority it claims for itself. These days, it is proud of its ability to be meaninglessly important.

The history of corruption and heresy within Christianity is long and varied. Christ Himself warned us of it, and so did the Apostles. Shall we believe every heresy that comes from some supposed Holy man?

Which should I believe? The Christ who calls me to submission to Him, or the Catholic Church that says I must submit to the Pope or face hell fire? Obviously, one is Biblical, the other is not.

“All of us, profit by opening and reading Scriptures, but what seems to you as a perversion of Scripture I do not, and it is not because I follow Tradition and you do not, but because you follow a different tradition. “

That isn’t even slightly true. I was raised Catholic, and I converted to Christianity without any knowledge of Baptist “tradition” or anything else. I merely read, and studied on my own, and discovered I agreed with the Baptists, and to a certain degree with the Pentecostals, when later I decided to see what they believed.

I’m pretty sure that most thinking people don’t just agree with whatever they’ve heard from others, but also read the scriptures to see if some claim is true or not.

It’s this level of discernment that many denominations, not just the Catholics, fail to use.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Galatians 1
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel”. All of these scriptures I have used can certainly be used against the Catholic Church and its centuries of mixing Christianity with paganism. Or, rather, mixing its Paganism with Christianity. There is no justification here for obeying some “authority” mindlessly, and a focus on traditions and weird doctrines not given to us by the Apostles is also specifically condemned in the Bible.

The Gospel of the Bible does not involve brown scapulars, queens of heaven, requirements against priestly marriage, infant baptism as a requirement for salvation, required attendance at mass, required submission to the Papal authority as a requirement of salvation, and so on and so forth.

As for Constantine. The heresy of baptism as a requirement for salvation for the forgiveness of sins is not a Arian one, but a Catholic one. It is one of many Catholic hoops that must be jumped in order to achieve salvation, and his interest in Arianism was but a failure of the Roman church to absolutely persuade him to join one version of heresy over another. The end result is the same. Constantine is dead, and he is likely not in a good place if he had faith in baptism to cleanse him of his sins.

[RobbyS]

It’s repeated failings and crimes? What about its repeated successes? Its persistence for centuries, its unity while the hoped for unity of the Reformers dissolved with the first decade. When I speak of the Church I even concede to Protestant the name of Church. The question remains: if two brothers read the Bible differently, someone must be there is decide between them, to say one is right and the other is wrong, or somehow to reconcile their views? The great scandal of the Church as always been disunion.Unbelievers mocks us for it.

[Apollo5600]

“The great scandal of the Church as always been disunion.Unbelievers mocks us for it.”

No, the great scandal has always been the incredible heresy and apostasy, over centuries upon centuries, of those who call themselves “Christian.”

As for “conceding” anything to Protestants, it is not necessary. The Catholic Church does not own it to concede it to anyone. It also doesn’t agree with you:

“”No one can deny or doubt that this Jesus Christ, in order to apply the fruits of His Redemption to all generations of man, has built here on earth, upon Peter, His one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church; and that He conferred upon her the power necessary to preserve whole and inviolate the deposit of Faith, and to transmit this same Faith to all peoples, tribes and nations, so that all men be united in her Mystcal Body through Baptism. Wherefore, this Church, which constitutes His Mystical Body, will persist and prosper in her stable and immutable nature until the end of time

Whoever carefully considers and studies the situation of the various religious communities, divided amongst themselves and separated from the Catholic Church will be easily convinced that none of these associations whether considered individually or taken as a whole can in any way be seen as that One Catholic Church that Christ the Lord built and willed to exist. Neither can they in any way be considered members or part of this same Church, as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity. It follows that such communities, lacking the living authority established by God to teach men especially in Morals and matters of Faith and customs, directing and governing them in all that concerns eternal salvation thus mutate in their doctrines and are constantly changing and instable.

For this reason, let all those who do not possess the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church take advantage of this Council, in which she offers a further demonstration of her profound unity and impregnable vital force; and responding to the demands of their hearts, let them strive to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation.”

(Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam vos omnes
of September 13, 1868 - DS 2997-2999 )

[RobbyS]

I suggest you read more recent documents, such as those issued by John Paul II. A much kinder tome has been adopted as of late, and this does all boil down to tone.

As to Heresy and apostasy? Who says? I mean who has the right to use these words? I need to see by express warrant YOU make such charges?

[Apollo5600]

“I suggest you read more recent documents, such as those issued by John Paul II. A much kinder tome has been adopted as of late, and this does all boil down to tone.”

Tones, feelings, rainbows, puppies. Is that what the Catholic church has come down to? This was a declaration by a Pope. Is it wrong?

“As to Heresy and apostasy? Who says? I mean who has the right to use these words? I need to see by express warrant YOU make such charges?”

Here you go, it’s all right here:

Matthew 28
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Titus 3
10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

2 Corinthians 4:1-4
Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

We have a commission to preach the Gospel to all the world, not to hide it or make merry with those who are dying. We are also commanded to reject heresy and admonish it.

You certainly have the choice to reject correction on these matters, but it doesn’t change the fact that there is little Biblical support for so many Catholic doctrines. I can do nothing else except call them what they are.

[RobbyS]

I said by what warrant do YOU speak? I see not personal connection between you are the Apostle, unless by some miracle you are the person Titus. Unlike some Catholics are aware of history. A Protestant body is not recognized as Church as is , say the Greek Church. But that is because our doctrines are too far apart. Still. even among Methodists some way is determined to decide who speaks truly and who not. I don’t put much stock in the opinions of the self-elected. I do accept correction, however, if it is based on more than an interpretation/use of Scripture that I reject.

[fishtank]

The one I had (I forget which one) did NOT have it.

BTW, it also had an “imprimatur” and “nihil obstat”.

[Cronos]

I would suggest you go back and check it — as fdcc pointed out, the catechism has salvation in it —> did you actually read the Catechism at all?

[fishtank]

I cannot find on Amazon the exact Catechism I had, this was quite a few years ago.

I am going to post what I _DID_ find in a new post.

I’ll put the link here after I do it. ....

[fishtank]

As I said, the catechism I had did NOT have a glossary entry for “salvation”.

See my new FR post on this issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2852540/posts?page=1

[Cronos]

blah, blah... the fact is that you made a statement that is false. As usual

[Ultra Sonic 007]

It is you who is ignorant here. To be baptized is not a necessary requirement for salvation, and it is not preached anywhere that I know that it is required for salvation.

He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Mark 16:16