Challenge to Protestants: Why the Bible?(2)

[arieh0310]

Contarini:

But since arieh specifically asked, I was trying to be honest in listing the few points where I do have questions.

My questions were more rhetorical than anything else and served really served no purpose in the thread. I guess I got spun up when you stated that it was Rome’s fault for not allowing you to be in full communion when you object to some of the Church’s teachings. I appologize, this thread is about the Bible, not condoms.

 

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

My questions were more rhetorical than anything else and served really served no purpose in the thread. I guess I got spun up when you stated that it was Rome’s fault for not allowing you to be in full communion when you object to some of the Church’s teachings. I appologize, this thread is about the Bible, not condoms.

Well, as I tried to say earlier, I wasn’t making an accusation of “fault.” I was simply pointing out that moderate Protestants are not wilfully in schism. Either we are heretics, or Rome is schismatic. In other words, you can’t simply say, “why don’t you return to unity.” There are real doctrinal issues at stake, and there are four possibilities.

1. Both sides are heretical (the Orthodox would say this, for instance).
2. Catholics are heretical, and Protestants are orthodox (hardline Protestants would say this, and this was the original reason Protestants separated).
3. Protestants are heretical, and Catholics are orthodox (this was the reason the Pope excommunicated Luther and Trent condemned Protestantism, and as far as I can tell it is still basically the Catholic position).
4. Both sides are orthodox, even if either or both of them has got some nonessential points wrong.

Only if 3 is correct is the current stance of the Catholic Church the correct one. If 4 is correct, then we Protestants cannot simply return to union with Rome, because Rome does not hold 4 to be the case, and would not allow us to return to union while holding 4 to be the case.

That was the point I was trying to make. I’m sorry that I didn’t make it more clearly.

Of course, the Joint Declaration between Catholics and Lutherans marks a remarkable step toward 4 with regard to the issue Protestants used to insist was the point of division. Of course, I don’t think Catholics have ever seen justification as the issue the way classical Protestants have, so arguably this is not as big a deal for Catholics as it was for the Lutherans.

My apologies for contributing to the derailing of this thread. I was making a point by the way, and was annoyed that you took it for some kind of attack on Catholicism when it was simply a clarification of my position and that of Protestants like me. But I should have clarified what I meant instead of responding to all the individual points.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Philthy:

Hi Edwin_

I don’t see any great evil here or inconsistency with respect to Vatican ll. It sounds - and Im simply trusting your historical perspective - that the Pope felt there was just cause for placing a limit on people’s access to Scripture outside of the Church’s supervision at that point in time based on experience and the social climate of the time. The statements condemned were seen as potentially exascerbating the situation.

If I’m right–and I’m about 80-90% sure that I am–then we simply differ on what constitutes “a great evil.” I suppose this is something on which, after years of examining Catholicism, I remain staunchly Protestant. I don’t think there can possibly ever be a just cause for limiting people’s access to Scripture. Banning heretical translations I can understand (even if I’m too much of a modern liberal–in the broad sense in which we’re almost all liberals–to agree with it). Telling people to read the Bible in the light of the Fathers and the teachings of the Church is fine. But I can’t see how this is possibly the issue here. Quesnel was, after all, a Catholic. The Jansenists were not as far as I know reading Protestant translations or denying the importance of the Church’s interpretation–in fact they were steeped in the Fathers, especially Augustine.

If “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” and “access to the Scriptures should be opened wide to all the Christian faithful” then the Pope was simply wrong here. I understand that you don’t recognize this. But I can’t see it any other way.

Philthy:

Actually that is precisely what one could conclude(among other things) from Quesnels statement ,if taken out of context, due to its ambiguity. That was my point, along with the fact that the reason for the condemnation remains unknown.

But I see absolutely no reason for thinking that he meant this. In fact, I don’t know of anyone who has ever said this. This is a good example of the bad hermeneutics (by most standards I know of) produced by too zealous a commitment to harmonizing papal teachings with each other and with Scripture and the Fathers. You come up with a highly far-fetched interpretation that no one (to my knowledge) has ever held, but which is theoretically a possible one, and argue that since the condemnation might refer to this bizarre opinion the condemnation is correct (or may be correct). I just can’t buy it, and the fact that someone as clearly intelligent and sensible as you are (judging from the reasoned tone of yoru posts) comes up with it tells me that something is wrong in the method you’re using.

Philthy:

You are probably right, but I don’t think so. First off, no “statement” was made - only a condemnation of the statements made by Quesnel. Right?

A condemnation is a statement that the condemned propositions are wrong. When the condemned propositions are thoroughly orthodox, the burden of proof is on supporters of the condemnation to show that they were being used in a heretical way. I don’t claim that this is absolutely impossible. But with regards to the passages in question, I see no reason to think that this is true.

As I’ve said before, I’m not claiming that this refutes Catholic claims, only the specific claim that “But for Grace” made.

Philthy:

Could you sight an ECF in support of independent scripture study during a period of time deemed inappropriate by the Church? Or perhaps an ECF supporting independent Scripture study as superceding Church teaching?

But the condemned statements don’t say anything of the kind. They don’t speak of “independent” Scripture study. If something else in the context made these passages heretical, then Clement would have cited those passages. I grant that the whole method of picking out isolated passages makes the text difficult to interpret centuries later. But I give the Pope credit for being smart enough to pick out the most offensive passages. So without having read Quesnel, I assume that he didn’t say anything about “independent” Scripture study, or we would have heard of it.

In other words, the only orthodox response to heretical Scripture study is to encourage correct Scripture study. To limit or ban Scripture study is always wrong. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. That’s one of the non-negotiables. And insofar as Protestants say it’s non-negotiable and Catholics historically did not, Protestants were in harmony with the Fathers and Catholics were not. Vatican II’s unqualified affirmation that laypeople should have access to Scripture is in harmony with the Fathers, with historic Protestantism, and with the condemned propositions of Quesnel, and it (rightly) reverses the position taken by the Catholic Church from the High Middle Ages through the 18th century (at least).

Edwin

 

[arieh0310]

Contarini:

1. Both sides are orthodox, even if either or both of them has got some nonessential points wrong.

I find point 4 extremely hard to justify with the diversity of opinion within Protestantism today. If you are talking about classical Protestantism I don’t think I can agree either. For Luther to say that you can commit muder and adultery 1000 times a day and not lose salvation is quite a bit different from the Catholic belief in salvation. I would also think that labeling the Pope the antichrist would be pretty helpful in excommunication.

 

[Contarini]

arieh0310:

I find point 4 extremely hard to justify with the diversity of opinion within Protestantism today.

Think of it in terms of each specific brand of Protestant opinion.

arieh0310:

If you are talking about classical Protestantism I don’t think I can agree either. For Luther to say that you can commit muder and adultery 1000 times a day and not lose salvation is quite a bit different from the Catholic belief in salvation.

That was not a doctrinal statement. It was a bit of extravagant rhetoric in a private letter. It’s crystal clear from Luther’s serious theological works (such as the Galatians commentary) that he did not believe that a person with saving faith would commit serious sins and remain in them. He says so explicitly. At worst, the Lutheran position is an unnecessary and counterintuitive psychologizing of orthodox Christian doctrine. The Joint Declaration has recognized that the differences here to not need to be church-dividing. If you think that the historic Lutheran position is necessarily heretical, then argue with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, not me.

arieh0310:

I would also think that labeling the Pope the antichrist would be pretty helpful in excommunication.

Undoubtedly. But if that’s the main issue, then the vast majority of Protestants who don’t consider the Pope Antichrist are not heretical any more.

Edwin

 

[Vaughn7107]

arieh0310:

I am currently a Protestant that is seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. One of the big reasons for my lack of faith in Protestantism is that the Catholic Church seems to have a better argument as to why the the Bible should be considered inspired. Can any Protestants offer a convicing argument why the Bible should be considered inspired?

okay why are you using that to base your decision of if you are or aren’t going to convert? I just don’t understand? personally…who cares who can argue this issue best? convert or don’t convert based off of what God is leading you to do.

 

[arieh0310]

Vaughn7107:

okay why are you using that to base your decision of if you are or aren’t going to convert? I just don’t understand? personally…who cares who can argue this issue best? convert or don’t convert based off of what God is leading you to do.

You should notice that I used the word “One” not “the only”. Catholicism seems to have history and Scripture on its side in the areas of: transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, communion of the saints, Marian dogma, primacy of Peter’s successor, salvation and justification, etc. It isn’t a single issue that is leading me to Rome but the determination of the canon of Scripture is a big one.

Also, faith is a matter of the will and the intellect. Anyone who is a devout believer in any faith can say they were led by God, but 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to have an answer.

 

[BarrenCross]

" but I will state my reason for believing in the bible anyway (and hence perhaps one may understand the reason for the origional thread of this name). I believe in the bible because the Catholic Church says to."

First I would like to say that this is one for THE most dangerous things any person could do, believe in something simply because they are told to. It’s just like leading a lamb to the slaughter. You should never believe something, no matter if your church, pastor or anyone says to, just on the premiss that they are correct, that is a very dangerous way to live.

Now, on the with main topic. There are many people, like the qoute from above, that believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God simply because that is what they have been told and taught all of their lives. This is fine, until an non-believer questions you, and your only answer is, “Well, my pastor told me so.” This will turn them away very quickly, becuase they will see that you are not able to think for yourself, and they assume that all Christians are just as mindless.

The Bible is full of prophecies that have been fulfilled, and are being fullfilled. From the Old Testament and New Testament. Modern archeology is finding proof of the Bible’s accuracy all the time. If you want to give a true, reasonable argument, then something of this nature is needed. Not, a just because you feel it is the Word of God. I don’t recall anything in the Bible that says that we are to be mindless. On the contrary, on multiple occasions, Jesus posed the question, “Have you not read?”

 

[But_for_Grace]

fair enough, BarrenCross, but why did you initially credit it worthy of further study? Was it an attempt to disprove the Bible, or an attempt to validate what it taught? Have you done the research yourself or are they things that you have read (either in books or on the internet)? Do you not see that this is also implicit trust in certian authorities? Do you read Greek and Hebrew or do you trust the translator?

 

[Clive_Copus]

Contarini:

Anyway, the Church’s strict stance is certainly being used against her. Of course a more pragmatic policy (following the lead of St. Thomas’s view of prostitution) would be used to show that the Church is “backing down” or is being inconsistent or something. But that doesn’t really matter–you couldn’t be vilified worse than you are already being. The question is what is the right position.

The right position is clear. We know what is right because that is what the Catholic Church teaches, and the beauty of the Catholic understanding of infallibility (to return to a previous point) is that we don’t need to wait 1500 years for a concensus to evolve to know that it’s true. We have Jesus’ word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Compromising Christ’s teachings for short-term popularity does matter. The beauty of Catholicism, however, is that, unlike Anglicanism/Episcopalianism, it does not and cannot compromise His teachings. Christ said that men would hate His followers and His Church, so we can live quite happily with the villification.

In any case, the lesson of Anglicanism in the UK is that a “pragmatic” search for short-term popularity merely renders you irrelevant in the longer-term.