Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2
Most Protestant Christians believe that the Bible is the only source concerning faith. According to them, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative, teaching Church. All that they need is the Bible in order to learn about the faith and to live a Christian life. The "Bible Alone" teaching can be appealing in its simplicity, but it suffers from fundamental problems. A few are considered here.
First the Bible itself states that not everything important to the Christian faith is recorded in it. For example, not everything that Christ did is recorded in the inspired Books:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]
According to John 20:31, some things have been recorded in the Gospel in order to come to know Christ; however, John 21:25 suggests that there is still more to know about Him. At least for St. John the Apostle, there was more that he needed to teach which was not recorded in the Bible:
I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]
Also St. Paul instructs Timothy on how to orally pass on the teachings of the faith:
...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]
St. Paul even commands (2 Thess. 3:6) the Thessalonian Christians to follow the oral Traditions of the Apostles:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]
These commands promoting Oral Tradition would be quite strange, if only the Bible were needed to pass on the entire Christian faith.
A second problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is canonicity - i.e. which Books belong in the Bible? It must be remembered that the Books of the Bible were written individually along with other religious books. Centuries later the Church compiled together the inspired Books under one cover to form the "Bible." A big question in the early Church was which books are the inspired written Word of God. (Inspired=written by men but authored by God; See Catechism of the Catholic Church 106.)
Scripture did not come with an "inspired" Table of Contents. Nowhere in the sacred texts are all the Books listed. There are some Books cited in the sacred writings but these lists are vague and incomplete (Acts 28:23; 2 Peter 3:16). There are also references to books not found in the Bible, such as St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16). St. Paul even encourages the Colossians to read this epistle, but still it is not in the Bible. Jesus in the Gospel never attempts to list the "official" Books of the Old Testament (OT). This issue was hotly debated in His day. Today Protestant and Catholic Christians disagree over which Books belong in the OT. Catholics follow the list in the Septuagint (2nd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture) while Protestants follow the list used by the Pharisees. A list from Jesus could have eliminated this problem, but no such list is found in the Gospel. As a result the Bible needs a visible authority outside of itself to list the inspired sacred Books. This authority must be guided by the Holy Spirit since these Books are from the Holy Spirit.
Some Christians claim that the Table of Contents in their Bible lists the inspired Books. Even though found in modern Bibles, the Table of Contents is still not inspired. It is not the Word of God but words added later by human editors, much similar to footnotes. The Table of Contents is basically the opinion of the publishing editor. Others may claim that the closing verses in the Book of Revelation, specifically Rev. 22:18-19, cap off the Bible and define all the preceding Books as inspired by God. But do these verses apply to the whole Bible or only the Book of Revelation? Another flaw with this idea is that not all Bibles have the same number of Books. As alluded to above, Catholic and Protestant Bibles contain different numbers of OT Books, yet all these Bibles close with the same verses: Rev. 22:18ff. Both cannot be right. Finally the Book of Deuteronomy contains similar verses (4:2 & 12:32). Does this imply that the Books after Deuteronomy are not inspired by God? No.
A third problem with the "Bible Alone" teaching is proper understanding of critical Bible passages. Most Protestant Christians promote personal interpretation of the Bible, i.e. anyone can interpret these passages by himself. Unfortunately this leads to chaos. For example over Baptism, some Protestants accept the validity of infant Baptism, while others do not. Some believe in the necessity of Baptism for salvation, citing Mark 16:16, while others disagree by citing John 3:16. They all claim to be Bible-based, but still they disagree over fundamental issues regarding salvation. Sadly the "Yellow Pages" phone directory is a witness to the many "Bible-Based" churches who disagree with each other over key issues of the Christian faith. Personal interpretation of the Bible naturally leads to a mire of human doctrines as a result of differing personal opinions.
The Bible was not written as a catechism. It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, letters, songs, etc. - requiring different ways of understanding. Sometimes Jesus in the Gospel purposely taught in figurative language and parables, which makes literal interpretation impossible. Even St. Peter admits that St. Paul's Epistles can be difficult to understand:
...Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. [2 Peter 3:15-16]
Finally the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30ff needed St. Philip to explain the Book of Isaiah. Obviously not everyone can understand the meaning of Scripture by simply reading it. More is required. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Even the Bible points to the importance of the Church for teaching the Truth. According to St. Peter in the Bible:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Peter 1:20-21]
At least prophecies in the Bible are not a matter of personal interpretation. These prophesies must be properly interpreted by "men moved by the Holy Spirit" since the Holy Spirit is the Author. These "men" are the Bishops of the Church - the successors to the Apostles (Acts 20:28-32). Finally the Bible does not call itself the bulwark of the truth; however, St. Paul does make reference to the Church in those terms:
...the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. [1 Tim. 3:15]
According to the Bible, the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
All Christians, including Catholics, should read the Bible in order to grow more in the faith; however, we still need the Church. The Church is needed to accurately pass on Apostolic Tradition (Romans 10:17), define the canon of the Bible (i.e. list the inspired Books), safeguard the accurate transmission (e.g. translations) of the Bible and interpret key passages, all with guidance from the Holy Spirit according to God's Will. The Church is needed for other reasons too. It must be understood that the Church is not merely men making arbitrary decisions but men executing authority from God guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church may at times be tested by scandals or scarred by the sins of men. We may sometimes disagree with the policies of the Church, but she is still the instrument of the Holy Spirit. This visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18-19; John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.
So Pope Benedict's assessment remains (from the above excerpt:)
I have followed this discussion from a late middle and wonder if there is an argument and where it is. It seems centered around Paul.
Give us all some time to digest. In the mean time PHI 3:1 gives pause for the rest of us to catch up.
and when presented with an open door to testify that you are Christian according to a certain Creed, you instead reply...
Well, you asked if I am atheist, and I answered you that I am not, which is true. If you wanted to know if I am Christian, you should have asked. Obviously, it would be hypocritical of me to say I am, given my views.
That's irrelevant. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that "Luke" wrote the Book of Acts, he would have had to get that information from Paul. So, either Paul gave him conflicting information, or "Luke" made it up, or some early copyist made a mistake which was then simply multiplied ad infinitum.
No matter how you look at it, the information is contradictory. One account says they were all on the ground and the other says some were standing; one says they heard a voice, the other says they heard nothing. This is the Bible we are talking about, AG, not eyewitness news.
there is no way to discern how many times Paul left and returned to Damascus in those "many days" or where he went or what he did
This is true, but Paul specifically makes sure we are told he did not meet up with all the apostles, but Peter and James (and James was not even an apostle!). In fact I would say, Paul shunned them because they did not preach the same gospel.
However, you have not directly answered my question whether you and/or the Catholic Church regard Paul’s “affidavit” in Galatians 1:11-19 to be truth or lie.
The issue was raised that Paul had created another Gospel, but he certifies in that passage that he received the revelation directly from Christ. As Pope Benedict said, paraphrased from the excerpt above, Paul witnessed the “Risen One” and received his mission directly.
Pope Benedict began his own message as “Today’s Catechesis” but I don’t know whether that means it is “official” Catholic doctrine.
If it is, then I believe the position of the Catholic Church would rebut any claims that Paul invented the gospel he preached or changed it according to the audience or that his words were just ordinary words of men.
eyedigress, the last paragraph is what this sidebar is all "about." The root of the dispute was post 342 addressed to you. I followed up at 378. MarkBsnr took a sympathetic position to kosta50's at 405.
I challenged MarkBsnr at 412 because it is my true belief that MarkBsnr's position needed to be explicated further because I discern him to be my brother in Christ and a Catholic by confession.
Paul is only part of it. But there were several other topics involved.
Clearly in PHI 3-1 to me he asks the congregation to understand that we are all of God through our faith in Christ. The interpretation to my understanding would be quite alarming to many if I expanded any further.
Well, that’s not necessarily true...the Jews had the Torah and Jesus even read from the Torah...the apostles quoted from it, and the scrolls etc. from which they wrote on. So the scriptures were used then.
I love the scriptures, though I do study and read other works, the scriptures are the source I validate or not what I read when there is a question of truth or meaning.
I believe God wants us to know truth and we may have to wait for that to be revealed, sometimes requiring study and searching, but scripture for me is the final authority.
I just read the last 100 posts and I apologize for leaving you out there. You understand the very thing I was attacked for a couple of years ago. I didn’t know you would become the next target. Chritians have a long road to come together. God Bless. (I must get to bed) :^)
Paul himself calls his gospel "his" gospel. His claim to have received it directly from the Risen Christ seems no different than Mohammad claiming he received the Koran, word for word, from Allah.
Paul also admits that he was all things to all men in hope they would become Christians. So, he admits to changing his message, which is obvious from the Epistles.
As I have testified so many times before on this thread, the words of God are spirit and life. They must be spiritually discerned.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Cor 2:13-14
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25
Muhammed is born of the rejected line. This line from Abraham. If you are here to say the lines of Jesus are not the Gift of God then I will disagree completley.
St. Paul calls his gospel "my gospel." His claim to have received it directly from the Risen Christ seems no different than Mohammad claiming he received the Koran, word for word, from Allah.
St. Paul also admits that he was all things to all men in hope they would become Christians. So, he admits to changing his message accordingly, which is obvious from the Epistles.
Pope Benedict said, paraphrased from the excerpt above, Paul witnessed the “Risen One” and received his mission directly.
This flies in the face of how the Church treats Pauline Epistles compared to the Gospels. For those not familiar with the Catholic/Orthodox Church, the only sciptures on the altar are the Gospels. They are the only "eye witnessed" words of the living God not "downloaded" from "above" to someone who claims to have mystically received them.
When the Gospels are read, the congregating stands. Only an ordained minister (a deacon, priest of bishop) can read from the Gospels facing the people. In addition to that, the Gospels are read immediately outside the royal gates leading to the altar where no parishioners ever stand.
Although the Catholic Church made every attempt to make itself more Protestant after the Vatican II, by introducing the readings of the Old Testament as well, the practice of the Orthodox Church has not changed since the earliest days of Christianity.
In Orthodox churches, Paul's Epistles are a separate book called The Apostle, which is kept in the cantor's stand. The Old Testament is not read during the liturgy. The Epistles are always read by a lay person facing the altar. In those churches where there are pews, the congregation is sitting when the Epistles are read (this is also true in Catholic churches).
Thus, from the earliest days (considering that the current Orthodox liturgy is 1700 years old, and the Traditional Latin Mass 1400) is indicative that the Church in the East and West treated the books of the Bible differently, and still does.
The Orthodox view of the scriptures is that the Holy Spirit inspires (leads) but the auhtor follows as best as he can, not necessarily perfectly .
In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author. Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit. [Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh, Greek Orthodox Church]
Please do me a favor and read his entire exposition on the dogmatic tradition of the Orthodox Church and do not jump to silly conclusion based on this alone.
It is undeniable that the Church holds St. Paul in the highest regard but not equal to the Gospels. The Gospels, just like the Torah in Judaism, is liturgically the highest scripture against which all scripture is measured and reconciled.
No need to apologize, although I appreciate the thoughfulness.
I'm done. That pretty much ends your odyssey.
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.