Interesting new Evangelization Trend

[Genesis315]

The Catholic Church teaches the Bible is in fact entirely inerrant. The idea that it is only inerrant on matters of faith but fallible on “scientific” matters was condemned.

This is true, but it also teaches that while everything in it is absolutely true, it’s not necessarily all to be taken as literal history and science. There are certain narrative or literary styles that are used as well as literal history, etc.–it depends on the particular book or even chapter.

 

[Teflon93]

Usually it’s one OT reading, a Psalm, an Epistle reading, and a Gospel reading. Sorry, just wanted to point that out for those who may wonder…

Whoops, you’re right!

Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Teflon93]

This is true, but it also teaches that while everything in it is absolutely true, it’s not necessarily all to be taken as literal history and science. There are certain narrative or literary styles that are used as well as literal history, etc.–it depends on the particular book or even chapter.

Correct—I was using inerrancy in the sense that those who believe in it in the Fundamentalist sense do.

For example, Christ talked about mustard seeds growing into trees, which some use to shout “A-ha! The Bible’s wrong!”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This is true, but it also teaches that while everything in it is absolutely true, it’s not necessarily all to be taken as literal history and science. There are certain narrative or literary styles that are used as well as literal history, etc.–it depends on the particular book or even chapter.

You are correct. The point that needs to be clear is there is a big difference between the “Bible has errors” and the Bible doesnt always teach literal science and history as a textbook would.

 

[Teflon93]

You are correct. The point that needs to be clear is there is a big difference between the “Bible has errors” and the Bible doesnt always teach literal science and history as a textbook would.

Absolutely. So someone who is told, “The Bible is absolutely inerrant”, asks “What about mustard seed growing into trees?”, and told something like “In Christ’s day they did” or “Christ miraculously made them do so” or somesuch in an effort to preserve a purely literal reading might well take serious issue.

 

[rwoehmke]

[/INDENT]The Catholic Church teaches the Bible is in fact entirely inerrant. The idea that it is only inerrant on matters of faith but fallible on “scientific” matters was condemned.
Amen!

Can you cite your source supporting the inerrantcy off all historical and scientific "facts in the Bible?

consider the following:
In his book Thomas E. Woods Jr.( How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) has a quotation from Edward Grants book “Science and Technology in the Middle Ages” which is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. It says as follows:

“First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguements show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture and the way to faith will be closed to them.”

In this day when there is sufficent archeological and/or scientific evidence that contradicts certain historical or scientific parts of the Scriptures it seems obvious that biblical history and science in the Old Testament needs be taken as carrying only theological truth. So what is to be made of narratives like the Creation, the Exodus, Noah’s Ark, David and Solomons Kingdom and such like?

newadvent.org/summa/106801.htm
On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): “God said: let there be a firmament,” and further on (verse 8); “And the evening and morning were the second day.”

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

 

[Writer]

With there being no EWTN radio in my area, I listen to a lot of protestant radio pastors. I don’t agree with some of the stuff they say, but overall, I still get good information from it. However, lately, on the radio, as well as in here, I am noticing a new trend in protestant evangelizing.

Basically… here is how it goes…
The Radio pastor talks about witnessing to someone.
The someone has a great many questions.
The Pastor makes comments like, we know she isn’t saved yet because she’s asking all these questions, but that “he indulges her”
To the congregation, he is actually ridiculing her for asking all these questions.
Only after she 'prays a prayer and accepts Christ as her lord and savior" does he consider her to be truely trying to follow Christ.

So, while this is one example, I am seeing this set up more and more often, even in here.

Why is it that we are no longer allowed to question and search? Why are some protestant pastors, (as well as some protestants here as well) teaching that it is BAD to ask questions. Some go so far as to say that you either have no faith, or very little faith if you are asking and searching.

When did seeking truth become a sin and a sign of poor faith?

I thought we were commanded to always seek truth?

(As a note, this is not just one pastor I am hearing it from. I think every radio pastor I have heard on the radio has mentioned this to some degree, so, please don’t just say its just a bad pastor as I am even seeing it here)

In Christ

I think there is a certain anti-intellectual tendency present within many of the Protestant churches. I am seeing some signs that it’s breaking a bit at some Evangelical Protestant universities, but there is certainly a long ways to go. (There is one university, for instance, that has a Catholic writer on the arts housed on the campus itself. As an aside, the same university may seriously be considering publishing a new version of my family’s conversion story, but time will tell what happens.)

Even those people who are intelligent and skeptical most of the time, seem to compartmentalize that which they are skeptical of and that which they take at face value, never questioning. As former Protestants, it surprises me what they think they know–when they simply repeat the lies about the Catholic Church that they’ve come to accept as truth. They will accept one theological concept–for example the idea of the “true myth”–from great Anglican scholars like C.S. Lewis, but they are not always comfortable to acknowledge that many of Lewis’ ideas were influenced by Catholic writers such as GK Chesterton, JRR Tolkien, or even Saint Augustine.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Correct—I was using inerrancy in the sense that those who believe in it in the Fundamentalist sense do.

For example, Christ talked about mustard seeds growing into trees, which some use to shout “A-ha! The Bible’s wrong!”

Where do mustard trees come from if not the seeds?

 

[Teflon93]

Where do mustard trees come from if not the seeds?

Mustard seeds grow into mustard plants.

The plant is quite large, but I don’t believe it’s a tree.

 

[juliamajor]

I think there is a certain anti-intellectual tendency present within many of the Protestant churches. I am seeing some signs that it’s breaking a bit at some Evangelical Protestant universities, but there is certainly a long ways to go. (There is one university, for instance, that has a Catholic writer on the arts housed on the campus itself. As an aside, the same university may seriously be considering publishing a new version of my family’s conversion story, but time will tell what happens.)

Even those people who are intelligent and skeptical most of the time, seem to compartmentalize that which they are skeptical of and that which they take at face value, never questioning. As former Protestants, it surprises me what they think they know–when they simply repeat the lies about the Catholic Church that they’ve come to accept as truth. They will accept one theological concept–for example the idea of the “true myth”–from great Anglican scholars like C.S. Lewis, but they are not always comfortable to acknowledge that many of Lewis’ ideas were influenced by Catholic writers such as GK Chesterton, JRR Tolkien, or even Saint Augustine.

Too true- what a lot of folks seem to forget is that the Bible is NOT a history book or a Science book or a Political book it is a book of faith of Salvation history not political history

 

[ralphinal]

I think that anti-intellectual is a little off. To me, it has always seemed more like fear of the unknown or the answers that might come up. One of the most difficult things to deal with intellectually is when your beliefs are challenged and proven wrong. That is one reason that so many people with a goal of converting people use emotions and not logic to achieve the goal. After all, if you are moved and the emotion makes you change, it is ok that it does not fit with logic. After all, it makes you feel better.

 

[cpayne]

Of course, I know what you mean. You’re only saying this because you don’t know the difference between the Gospel of salvation and the Synoptic Gospels. That’s a very common mistake for someone who doesn’t study the scriptures to make. Don’t feel too bad about it. You’re not the only one.

“Of course, I know what you mean.”

Sigh. False sympathy, condescension.

“You’re only saying this because…”

Sigh. Condescension.

“You don’t know the difference…”

Sigh.

“between the Gospel of salvation and the Synoptic Gospels.”

Sigh. First of all, I’m sure you know there’s another Gospel besides the Synoptics. Secondly, the Gospel of salvation to Catholics encompasses more than a rabbit trail of very carefully selected scriptures designed to flip the Salvation Switch.

“That’s a very common mistake…”

Sigh. Condescension.

“for someone who doesn’t study the scriptures to make.”

Sigh. Worse than condescension—after condescension comes Ridiculous Condescension.

“Don’t feel too bad about it. You’re not the only one.”

Sigh.

Anyway, Heisenburg, regarding the OP: I’m with you to a certain extent. Questions are paths to truth. The only thing I’d watch for are the people, and I’ve encountered many, especially in the classroom, who use unending questioning as a shield to avoid commitment; in fact, by their ceaseless questions they actually avoid the Gospel of salvation. Which is their purpose, of course.

Sigh all over again. Teflon, you must be constituted of teflon to avoid discouragement. Rejoice in the Lord and remember: “So shall My Word be that goes forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplish that which I please, and prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it.” Maybe I just don’t have the charity and patience for seed-planting when it requires overlooking so much.

But God knows us and still reaches out to us. Pray I will become more like Him, okay?

 

[po18guy]

To the congregation, he is actually ridiculing her for asking all these questions. Why is it that we are no longer allowed to question and search? Why are some protestant pastors, (as well as some protestants here as well) teaching that it is BAD to ask questions. Some go so far as to say that you either have no faith, or very little faith if you are asking and searching.

When did seeking truth become a sin and a sign of poor faith?

I thought we were commanded to always seek truth?

They, through hardness of heart, are spitting in St. Paul’s face. He admonished us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NIV) “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”. These hucksters want you to make an on-the-spot, cult-like decision. Pray for them, they know not what they do.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

“Of course, I know what you mean.”

Sigh. False sympathy, condescension.

“You’re only saying this because…”

Sigh. Condescension.

“You don’t know the difference…”

Sigh.

“between the Gospel of salvation and the Synoptic Gospels.”

Sigh. First of all, I’m sure you know there’s another Gospel besides the Synoptics. Secondly, the Gospel of salvation to Catholics encompasses more than a rabbit trail of very carefully selected scriptures designed to flip the Salvation Switch.

“That’s a very common mistake…”

Sigh. Condescension.

“for someone who doesn’t study the scriptures to make.”

Sigh. Worse than condescension—after condescension comes Ridiculous Condescension.

“Don’t feel too bad about it. You’re not the only one.”

Sigh.

Anyway, Heisenburg, regarding the OP: I’m with you to a certain extent. Questions are paths to truth. The only thing I’d watch for are the people, and I’ve encountered many, especially in the classroom, who use unending questioning as a shield to avoid commitment; in fact, by their ceaseless questions they actually avoid the Gospel of salvation. Which is their purpose, of course.

Sigh all over again. Teflon, you must be constituted of teflon to avoid discouragement. Rejoice in the Lord and remember: “So shall My Word be that goes forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplish that which I please, and prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it.” Maybe I just don’t have the charity and patience for seed-planting when it requires overlooking so much.

But God knows us and still reaches out to us. Pray I will become more like Him, okay?

If you make me wake up my baby because I am laughing so loud just know it’s all on your head.

Ridiculous Condescension comes after Condescension? I’m dieing over here

 

[heisenburg]

I do find it quite odd that people would assume that others arent reading the bible, simply because they do not agree with your understanding…

What some people fail to realize is that we are interpreting the same scripture differantly. its not that it’s being taken out of context, or anything like that, ussualy it boils down to the meaning of words… (which paul warned us about)

case in point…

You must be born again of water and spirit.

some people take that to mean born of the womb, then born of the spirit. Something I don’t see it in that passage, but ok…

others, such as myself, see it to mean water baptizm and spiritual baptizm…

which is worng… If we are going strictly on personal interpretations, ie Sola Scriptura, they are equally right. No one has the right to say the other is wrong, because no one has any authority over the other.

So, to those that wish to claim that Catholics do not read the bible, remember, two things are occuring, one, you are assuming too much, and two, you are assuming your understanding is better than others, thus making you your own Pope.

**In any case, I would like to keep the topic of discussion on what has been mentioned by the OP… do not take it to the eucharist, baptism, etc, unless it is DIRECTLY related. if someone wants to discuss why the Catholics got Baptizm wrong, go for it… but do open a seperate thread. **

May the peace of Christ be with you always

 

[po18guy]

LOL…Roman Catholics, eschewing scripture, have to replace it with the Magisterium.

Paul admonished us to hold fast to the traditions which had been handed down, whether by letter (scripture) or word of mouth (tradition). The early church was a combination of both. Catholics hold fast to scripture, as evidenced by the very bible you have. They hold fast to tradition as well, evidenced by the Eucharist and six other Sacraments. The Evangelical church sees no Eucharist in either chapter, since their church is much younger and they never had the Eucharistic tradition to complement it. This tradition, established by Christ, was recorded in 1 Corinthians 11 and in John 6. Both chapters are examples of scripture recording and preserving tradition. Conversely, tradition validates the scripture. If you have no tradition for scripture to explain, the scripture can be confusing.

BUT, if you have had both scripture and tradition since day one, it makes perfect sense. The Eucharist has been practiced continuously by Catholics for 1,974 years, the Eastern Orthodox since they were founded, and practiced and believed in by Lutherans since their founding.

Look to the Catholic church, since they preserved both tradition, as written of by Paul, and scripture since those days. The Evangelical church has most of the scripture, with the exception of the Septuagint, but very little of the tradition. As such, new traditions (“sola”) have been innovated, since they are not mentioned in scripture. Catholics believe that the two parts of the early Christian faith, preseved and used together, remain faithful to Paul’s teaching.

Actually, tradition may be more reliable than scripture, as it has been practiced, without interruption, since Christ was alive. Scripture can be inconsistent between the Gospels, according to the limitation of the Apostle’s memories. Paul advises to hold fast to both “letter” (scripture) and “word of mouth” (oral tradition). This is why the Catholic church uses both scripture and tradition. If you give up one, you must then rely “solely” on the other. Catholics believe that a combination of both is best, exactly as Paul did.

Christ’s peace be wth you.

BroSam, above is my response to another brother with questions. Tradition alone is not enough. Scripture alone is not enough. Only by combining the two can you have the whole picture. John 21:25 clearly says that the bible is esentially Cliffs Notes of the life of Christ. Don’t you want more? Doesn’t your seeking heart desire, crave MORE of Jesus? If you want a personal relationship with Christ, there is no more personal relationship with Him than to eat His Body and Drink His Blood. Add scripture to this picture and you have the fullness of faith and truth.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[po18guy]

“Of course, I know what you mean.”

Sigh. False sympathy, condescension.

“You’re only saying this because…”

Sigh. Condescension.

“You don’t know the difference…”

Sigh.

“between the Gospel of salvation and the Synoptic Gospels.”

Sigh. First of all, I’m sure you know there’s another Gospel besides the Synoptics. Secondly, the Gospel of salvation to Catholics encompasses more than a rabbit trail of very carefully selected scriptures designed to flip the Salvation Switch.

“That’s a very common mistake…”

Sigh. Condescension.

“for someone who doesn’t study the scriptures to make.”

Sigh. Worse than condescension—after condescension comes Ridiculous Condescension.

“Don’t feel too bad about it. You’re not the only one.”

Sigh.

Anyway, Heisenburg, regarding the OP: I’m with you to a certain extent. Questions are paths to truth. The only thing I’d watch for are the people, and I’ve encountered many, especially in the classroom, who use unending questioning as a shield to avoid commitment; in fact, by their ceaseless questions they actually avoid the Gospel of salvation. Which is their purpose, of course.

Sigh all over again. Teflon, you must be constituted of teflon to avoid discouragement. Rejoice in the Lord and remember: “So shall My Word be that goes forth out of My mouth: It shall not return unto Me void, but shall accomplish that which I please, and prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it.” Maybe I just don’t have the charity and patience for seed-planting when it requires overlooking so much.

But God knows us and still reaches out to us. Pray I will become more like Him, okay?

Pity BroSam at this point in his faith. He likely has never eaten the Body of Christ, nor drunk His Blood. Does he have any life in him? Prayers, indeed. But, he’s here for a reason. If he will just stay with us, we can reveal the reasons for our faith.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Clem_Jones]

I think that anti-intellectual is a little off. To me, it has always seemed more like fear of the unknown or the answers that might come up. One of the most difficult things to deal with intellectually is when your beliefs are challenged and proven wrong…

You’re half-right! It’s actually agoraphobia. I was a Fundamentalist Pentecostal for almost 10 years. And I can tell you – anything that looks, smells or feels like intellectual study is deemed suspicious at best, evil at worst.

Pentecostal preachers rarely must attend seminary (I know a few…) and so a general knowledge of the history and tradition of the early church and the formation of Scripture is something they tend to (again, “tend to”, not generalizing) know very little about. Anything beyond the parameters of what they have been taught by their elders or have read/experienced for themselves is suspect. And most of that information is innaccurate.

Pentecostals pride themselves on being “regular” people (also read, “poor” or “working-class”) and view academic learning with utter scorn. Reading works even by CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien was often discouraged in my congregation because neither were Pentecostal. Nevermind that they were intellectual GIANTS. And the possibility that there could be predecessors to Lewis and Tolkien in the (GASP!) Catholic Church was never even entertained. All Catholics were going to Hell.

The refreshing thing about being Pentecostal was the lack of pretension. Because everyone prided themselves on being working-class, regular joes, it was a pretty friendly and open atmosphere. The downside was a mean class warfare streak that resulted in the whole policy of “not asking questions” (especially about the financial workings of the church, but that’s another thread).

Needless to say, the first time I attended a Mass, I thought the walls were going to start bleeding and the music from The Exorcist would blare from the sacristy.

And I think that’s what Catholics have to keep in mind when we try to communicate with people like BroSam. Most of the time, they’re just going on what they’ve been taught, which is erroneous. As long as we can communicate with each other respctfully, I think both groups can learn from each other.

 

[cpayne]

To Clem Jones: You want to hear something funny? For years and years I wouldn’t read anything by C.S. Lewis because I knew he smoked.

 

[Clem_Jones]

LOL! That’s AWESOME!