More on false gospels

[centuri0n]

Did I lose you?

 

[centuri0n]

Just checking – you might be busy. You were very prompt yesterday.

 

[centuri0n]

It doesn’t seem like you to bail … you must be busy …

 

[centuri0n]

I don’t meant to be annoying – some people say I just can’t help myself.

This was going so well, and then you disappeared …

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Did I lose you? >>

Naw, I’m still here. But I thought I answered your objection on false gospels, and you brought up more things that I thought other folks were dealing with fairly well. So I declined to continue.

Summary: Your initial objection was the Assumption of Mary is a false gospel or at least an “addition” to the true gospel based on your understanding of Galatians 1. I clarified the objection by defining gospel as the entire Catholic Christian faith (e.g. Jude 3; 2 Thess 2:14-15; 2 Tim 1:13-14, etc), and by that definition it wouldn’t be an addition to the gospel. It is part of the “deposit of faith.” Objection answered.

We can next delve into biblical or historical “evidence” for the Assumption, but for Catholics the deciding issue is the authority of the Church, not whether or not we think there is good “evidence” for such and so doctrine. Every argument against Catholic dogma ultimately comes down to the authority issue.

Phil P

 

[centuri0n]

… that’s a cop out. :dancing:

<< Did I lose you? >>

Naw, I’m still here. But I thought I answered your objection on false gospels, and you brought up more things that I thought other folks were dealing with fairly well. So I declined to continue.

Fairly well in what way? None of you have yet confronted the issue that your definition is itself self-referential (circular), and none of you have yet delivered on the implications of Hebrews 11-12.

Summary: Your initial objection was the Assumption of Mary is a false gospel or at least an “addition” to the true gospel based on your understanding of Galatians 1. I clarified the objection by defining gospel as the entire Catholic Christian faith (e.g. Jude 3; 2 Thess 2:14-15; 2 Tim 1:13-14, etc), and by that definition it wouldn’t be an addition to the gospel. It is part of the “deposit of faith.” Objection answered.

My initial question was whether or not Pius XII declaration in 1950 was always part of the faith, the faith being clearly defined by the passage in Heb 11-12. Your answer simply says, without examining Hebrews, that it must be so – no reference to any fact but that Pius said it and it must be so. :ehh:

That’s not an answer.

We can next delve into biblical or historical “evidence” for the Assumption, but for Catholics the deciding issue is the authority of the Church, not whether or not we think there is good “evidence” for such and so doctrine. Every argument against Catholic dogma ultimately comes down to the authority issue.

Phil P

Of Course. The question is whether the church has the kind of authority you are resting your argument on, and whether it has exercised that authority within the bounds the Apostle has already provided.

:bounce: Bring it. Bring your case that those who are listed in Heb 11-12 all had the same faith which Pius XII says is the only true faith – that is, a faith which includes the bodily assumption of Mary.

 

[SCTA-1]

Here’s something interesting: The Book of Hebrews was not even in the Canon of Scripture until well into the late 300’s.Now for authority:What authority finally accepted Hebrews as "Scripture"and included it into the N.T. Canon? You refer to Hebrews 11-12 as an example for true faith but it took an “Authority” to determine if it was true scripture.The Councils of Hippo and Carthage finally gave it the o.k.By the way,these were Catholic Church Councils which were ratified by the Pope.

 

[BobCatholic]

centuri0n:

Nice to meet you, Bob.
I would offer this response to your assertion: certainly Paul was an Apostle, and certainly some of the things that Paul taught were inerrant (for instance, his teaching in Scripture is certainly inerrant), but I don’t think it’s right to say that every word that came out of Paul’s mouth on the subject of Christianity was infallible.

Well, after his conversion, what words of Paul were not infallible? Where would we find these words?

Declaring it “authoritatively” is different than declaring it “infallibly”. I know you folks like to tie them together,

Agreed. So tell me, after all the Apostles died, and a controversey came up (like heresies, etc.,) who do we turn to, to settle the controverseys? In Acts 15, the Apostles and the rest of the hierarchy did, with the Apostles doing the ruling. Now that the rulers are dead, what now?

When I said “Did Christ leave us orphans?” I meant that. Did Christ not leave us with a means of determining which one of the thousands of interpretations of scripture is the correct one, or did Christ just says “doctrinal relativism is OK”?

Did Christ just say “here’s a Bible, you’re on your own” or did Christ leave us with a way of understanding His teachings 100% correctly?

 

[Tom]

Just one short note. Jesus did not say on this rock I will write my book. He did NOT leave us the New Testament, as we all know the NT took hundreds of years to compile. The Scripture is the inspired Word of God, and yes it is a wonderful reference. For argument, after His death, He explained to His Apostles ALL of the Scripture referring to Him, that must have been a wonderful thing to hear, please help me, where is this explaination in the Bible? I’d love to read it and study it. It of course is NOT in the Bible, it is part of the oral Tradition passed on from the Apostles, which unfortunately our Protestant brothers reject. Remember Scripture says the Church is the foundation of truth, NOT the Scripture. Sola Scripture MUST refer only to the Old Testament, since most of the NT had not been written. Should we reject the NT since it must be “false”? Of course not. We follow the teachings of His Church because it’s His Church, it’s how He established it. Sorry so many reject it.

 

[centuri0n]

SCTA-1:

Here’s something interesting: The Book of Hebrews was not even in the Canon of Scripture until well into the late 300’s.

Be honest: are you trying to cast doubt on the canonicity of the Book of Hebrews? If you are not, what exactly is your point?

Without refuting or disputing your facts here, what does it matter if Hebrews was accepted in 34 AD or in 334 AD? If it is what it says it is (that is, if it is an apostolic letter written prior to 70 AD), its point is absolutely valid and its definition of the Gospel is still far more detailed than the ones offered by Phil or any of the other Catholic advocates so far.

Now for authority:What authority finally accepted Hebrews as "Scripture"and included it into the N.T. Canon? You refer to Hebrews 11-12 as an example for true faith but it took an “Authority” to determine if it was true scripture.The Councils of Hippo and Carthage finally gave it the o.k.By the way,these were Catholic Church Councils which were ratified by the Pope.

I think you need to check your definition of “Scripture”. Paragraph 81 of the CCC says this:

“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

It is a definition any Protestant could agree with. Scripture is what it is not because men say it is but because of who tthe author is. The book of Hebrews was Scripture from the moment it was penned – not from the moment any man recognized it as Scripture. In that, Scripture does not draw its authority from councils but from God Himself.

 

[Tom]

Sorry, but the Church, the Catholic Church, established what was and was not Scripture. Luther did try to change the NT but failed. Thank God for small favors. Yes it was inspired from the moment is was written, ever wonder how much else is inspired but NOT accecpted as inspired. Remember Jesus left us the Holy Spirit to guide us 2,000 years ago. Certainly there have been “inspired” writings since then. Sorry, that was just for fun. BTW it is truly nice to read your posts, thank you for that.

 

[centuri0n]

BobCatholic:

Well, after his conversion, what words of Paul were not infallible? Where would we find these words?

I already offered one example – perhaps you missed it. I said, "For example, Paul parted company with Barnabas over John Mark. He was mistaken as Mark was used by the Holy Spirit to write the first Gospel account. How could that happen if Paul was infallible on the subject of Christianity?"

Bob:

Agreed. So tell me, after all the Apostles died, and a controversey came up (like heresies, etc.,) who do we turn to, to settle the controverseys? In Acts 15, the Apostles and the rest of the hierarchy did, with the Apostles doing the ruling. Now that the rulers are dead, what now?

Scripture. And for the record, Acts 15 accounts for a council of “Apostles and Elders” (Acts 15:6), not only or strictly Apostles. This passage is often cited by Catholics for a variety of purposes, but rarely is the entire passage cited correctly or are all the details rightly framed.

Bob:

When I said “Did Christ leave us orphans?” I meant that. Did Christ not leave us with a means of determining which one of the thousands of interpretations of scripture is the correct one, or did Christ just says “doctrinal relativism is OK”?

You are confusing Protestantism with agnosticism or atheism. Protestants would not even exist if mere doctrinal relativism was the point of protest – becasue it would be fine for you to believe what you believe, and fine for me to believe what I believe if we were doctrinal relativists.

Did Christ just say “here’s a Bible, you’re on your own” or did Christ leave us with a way of understanding His teachings 100% correctly?

Would you care to provide a teaching that Catholics get 100% right and Protestants get even 1% wrong which has been infallibly promulgated by the Magisterium?

That’s a great assertion: it is 100% empty.

 

[centuri0n]

Does it matter or not matter what the Catechism says on this subject? Your definition of Scripture is at odds with the direct citation of the CCC.

If the CCC doesn’t matter, then there’s not reason to argue with you: you’re not advocating Catholicism but your version of Catholicism. I’m not interested in something that is not the official (read: infallible) position on doctrine.

 

[Tom]

centuri0n:

I already offered one example – perhaps you missed it. I said, "For example, Paul parted company with Barnabas over John Mark. He was mistaken as Mark was used by the Holy Spirit to write the first Gospel account. How could that happen if Paul was infallible on the subject of Christianity?"

Paul was not a pope, so what’s the argument? And, even a pope, NOT every thing he says or does is infallible. Infallible not impeccability.

 

[centuri0n]

What was the last book of the NT written?
Who wrote it?
When did he write it?

If you can answer these three questions, you will have completely blown away your point here. You have also have ignored paragraph 81 of the Catechism – which gives an entirely different definition of Scripture than you do.

 

[centuri0n]

I re-stated the answer. The point is Bob’s assertion that Paul only spoke infallibly. He never di and never confessed to do so.

 

[JPrejean]

centuri0n:

Bring your case that those who are listed in Heb 11-12 all had the same faith which Pius XII says is the only true faith – that is, a faith which includes the bodily assumption of Mary.

The implicit problem in your analysis is that you are viewing faith as a set of doctrinal propositions of theology, and evaluating the truth of individual faith by the truth of that set of doctrinal propositions. You are therefore confusing Catholic references to the deposit of faith (often referred to as the faith of the Church, aka, revelation) with subjective faith (the means of salvation). The objective faith is what everyone should believe (because it is the truth revealed by God), but because of human fallibility (ignorance, mistake, sin), people’s subjective faith will not always correspond to the objective faith perfectly. Thus, “true faith” means different things when applied to the entire Church and when applied to individuals.

Scripture clearly demonstrates that “saving faith” need not be identical with knowing complex theological truths revealed by Christ. Christ tells people who are unlikely to have a detailed systematic theology that their faith has saved them, e.g., the sick (Matt. 9:6, 9:22; Mk. 5:34), the blind (Mk. 10:52), the woman anointing his feet with oil (Lk. 7:50). Consider also that the most profound confessions of faith in the NT (e.g., John 20:28; Matt. 16:16) deal solely with Christ’s divinity and don’t even address soteriology at all, yet they are clearly meant to show that the person has saving faith. No image describes this simplicity of faith so well as the little child who has complete trust in Christ and complete obedience to Him, apart from any complicated theological concepts. This is the kind of faith that is shared by the saints of all ages, and the kind of faith that is described in Hebrews 11-12 (and Romans 4, and James 2, …). This may be contrasted with the objective faith, in which there are endless depths of truth that no single human being could ever fathom.

It seems to me that judging the truth of one’s personal faith based on the accuracy of one’s knowledge of complex theological concepts is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that simple faith can save. If asked to explain the theory of the atonement, I’m sure that a beggar or a child would likely make some mistake, yet that does not diminish the saving quality of their faith. Furthermore, even making such judgments on others comes dangerously close to the sin of the Pharisee standing in judgment over the tax collector.

However, I think that people who take responsibility for teaching the faith in New Testament times are subject to a higher standard for theological truth (Jas. 3:1, Heb. 13:17, Gal. 1:8), and they are expected to learn and know the objective faith sufficiently well. For example, the false brethren who are condemned in Scripture are not condemned by simple mistake or error, but for resisting correction and for teaching their mistake to others. But that does not apply to the run-of-the-mill Christian who has not taken pastoral responsibility for others’ spiritual development.

 

[SCTA-1]

My point is simple: I do not doubt the canonicity of Hebrews because the Church declared it so. Granted, Hebrews was written early as was much of the N.T.,but many writings were not acknowledged as canon for a long time.Even though all 27 books of the N.T. were written by 100 A.D.,not all of them were recognized as scripture.You had many other writings that were recognized as scripture at that time.You needed an Authority to sort it out.If you were a Christian in 250A.D. and rejected the Book of Hebrews as “Scripture”, you still would have been a Christian in good standing.Matter of fact,you could have given Hebrews up to the pagan emperor to be burned and not be considered an apostate.

 

[BobCatholic]

centuri0n:

I already offered one example – perhaps you missed it. I said, "For example, Paul parted company with Barnabas over John Mark. He was mistaken as Mark was used by the Holy Spirit to write the first Gospel account. How could that happen if Paul was infallible on the subject of Christianity?"

What part of the deposit of faith that Christ handed down to his Apostles was affected by that? Nothing.

An apostle making a mistake does not mean they weren’t infallible. You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability.

Scripture.

Wonderful. There are thousands upon thousands of sola-scripturist interpretations of scripture. Using scripture alone, which one of the thousands are is the correct one?

but rarely is the entire passage cited correctly or are all the details rightly framed.

Who determines that the “details were rightly framed”?

You are confusing Protestantism with agnosticism or atheism.

I’m not. Protestantism acts similar to agniosticism/atheism in one key area: There is no way to determine which one of the thousands of interpretations is the correct one. So what is the solution? Instead of finding out the true and correct interpretation and come together on it, the solution is schism, schism, schism, schism…basically “it is OK for you, but not for me”

Protestants would not even exist if mere doctrinal relativism was the point of protest

Actually, doctrinal relativism wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for protestantism.

Would you care to provide a teaching that Catholics get 100% right and Protestants get even 1% wrong which has been infallibly promulgated by the Magisterium?

The canon of scripture. You guys accept it 100% correctly, and agree that the Holy Spirit played a huge part in it, but get wrong by what mechanism it was determined.

 

[centuri0n]

JPrejean:

The implicit problem in your analysis is that you are viewing faith as a set of doctrinal propositions of theology, … Thus, “true faith” means different things when applied to the entire Church and when applied to individuals.

If we operate under you assumption, let’s go back to Pius XII’s assertion for a moment. Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Dei, promulgated the following doctrinal assertion:
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. (For those who follow such things, the complete document is here:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM )
If I understand your objection here, you are saying that I am confusing the idea of the deposit of faith (that is, divine revelation) from the actual faith which saves. I’m not sure if anyone reading Pius XII’s encyclical here can make the case that Pius was saying someone who denies this doctrine is merely outside of the correct teaching – because he goes on to say:
It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. To Pius, to have fallen away from the faith is to incur the wrath of God. That’s not merely talking about a set of teachings, but of the salvific consequences of affirming or denying this doctrine.

Not my assertion: it’s Pius XII’s assertion.

Scripture clearly demonstrates that “saving faith” need not be identical with knowing complex theological truths revealed by Christ. …
… This may be contrasted with the objective faith, in which there are endless depths of truth that no single human being could ever fathom.

Yes yes – quite so. The thief on the cross did not have a systematic theology – only a humble and contrite heart. That is entirely not my point. I don’t think anyone has to have a published thesis on systematics to be saved – but the question is whether that faith that saves them is a faith which is, by definition, inclusive of faith in the assumption of Mary. The Gospel does not include the matter of Mary’s assumption – not in any version presented in the NT. Yet Pius XII has said if one denies it, one is outside of the faith and in the wrath of God.

That’s quite an addition.
…more to come…