Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hiedi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The biggest problems I have found is that if its not in the bible its not true, Even the bible tells you it does not cover much. There is so much not written. But for some reason as many protestants that read the bible (and i give them credit for that) seem to miss that part. I dont know why. The other big thing is Luther, and especially Mary, Then and this is the part that blows my mind the most is luther prayed to Mary more than anyone. If you do research on him, you will find that out. Now alot of protestants (not all) will follow the protestant faith that Luther started and quote him word for word, but when it comes to the Blessed Mother they never mention what he said about her. Why is that? How many protestants know that luthers last prayers on his death bed was to the Blessed Mother. But yet they condem our beliefs of the church and yet believe what luther believed. I think more need to read up on him, and what a disturbed individual he was. Dont get me wrong he had alot of knowledge of Religion because he also was Catholic, but turned away from the Church and didnt want to do things the churchs way, he wanted to do them his way. I think they should start with the history of Luher and why he was really tossed out of the Church. But as far as the Church its all there, even Luther believed, he just couldnt live up to the Churchs rules so he made his own. Luther never ever disagreed with the truth, and he was taught it, he just wanted to change it to fit his lifestyle. I still believe if people would learn the truth about him, things would change alot.
 
rinnie said:
The biggest problems I have found is that if its not in the bible its not true, Even the bible tells you it does not cover much. There is so much not written. But for some reason as many protestants that read the bible (and i give them credit for that) seem to miss that part. I dont know why. The other big thing is Luther, and especially Mary, Then and this is the part that blows my mind the most is luther prayed to Mary more than anyone. If you do research on him, you will find that out. Now alot of protestants (not all) will follow the protestant faith that Luther started and quote him word for word, but when it comes to the Blessed Mother they never mention what he said about her. Why is that? How many protestants know that luthers last prayers on his death bed was to the Blessed Mother. But yet they condem our beliefs of the church and yet believe what luther believed. I think more need to read up on him, and what a disturbed individual he was. Dont get me wrong he had alot of knowledge of Religion because he also was Catholic, but turned away from the Church and didnt want to do things the churchs way, he wanted to do them his way. I think they should start with the history of Luher and why he was really tossed out of the Church. But as far as the Church its all there, even Luther believed, he just couldnt live up to the Churchs rules so he made his own. Luther never ever disagreed with the truth, and he was taught it, he just wanted to change it to fit his lifestyle. I still believe if people would learn the truth about him, things would change alot.
Click to expand...
Can you pont me to anythingh wrote that confirms what you have said?
 
rcjones said:
I am hoping to run across some who are knowledgeable about sensus plenior and/or the four layers of meaning in the scripture.
Click to expand...
rc,
Are you referring to the Four Senses of Scripture?

There are two main senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The spiritual sense can be further divided into the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical, giving a totol of four main senses.

Literal**** - The literal sense is simply what the words mean, what the sacred authors intend to convey. The literal here meaning in a technical sense of what the author intends. This technical sense of literal includes figures of speeck, which convey the author’s meaning just as clearly as nonfigurative language. The figurative expression “she broke my heart” is just as clear as “she made me very sad.” But, we can also use literal in the oridinary sense of the exact, nonfigurative meaning of the word. We discover the meaning of scriptural words by following the rules of sound interpretation. Often this includes taking into account the author’s culture, figures of speech, and literary forms. In the literal realities and events of Scripture, we can often see additional spiritual signs or meanings. But, we must remember: “All other senses of Scripture are based on the literal.” (CCC 116)

Allegorical - Many of the events in Scripture find their ultimate significance in Christ. This is typology: things in the OT signifying Christ and His Church. The crossing of the Red Sea is not only a literal historical event, it is also a sign of Christ’s victory and of Christian baptism.

Moral - The events reported in Scripture ought to inspire us to lead moral lives. As St. Paul says, they were, “written down for our instruction” (1 Cor 10:11). Jesus cured blind Bartimaeus after he repeatedly cired out, “Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mark 10:46-52). This real miracle is also an exhortation for us to persisit in our petitions.

**Anagogical **- The events and realties of Scripture can also point to our final end: heaven, The Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:1-22:5).

A medieval couplet summarizes these four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds,
Allegory to faith,
The Moral how to act,
Anagogy our destiny (CCC 118)

All biblical pasages have at leasat the literal intended meaning. Some have one or more spiritual meanings as well. Consider manna in the desert (Exodus 16). Literally, God fed the Israelites with heavenly bread until the end of th ier 40-year pilgrimage to the promised land of Canaan. Allegorically, the manna foreshadows the Eucharist, where Jesus - “the living bread w hich cam down from heaven” (John 6:51) - feeds us spirituall with His real flesh and blood during our earthly pilgrimage. Morally, this miracle encourages us not to grumble against God (Exodus 16:203) but humbly trust in His provision. Anagogically, this episode reminds us that just as the manna ceased when the Israelites entered Canaan, so will the Eucharist end as we enter our true promised land of heaven and see God as He is.

People use figures of speeck to make their words more colorful, interesting, and memorable. In the Bible, God speaks to us in human language. Not surprisingly, then, Scirpture frequently uses figures of sppeck to communicate God’s revelation with maximum impace. The average person can normally understand the Bible’s common figures of speeck.

The use of simile, metaphor, approximate language, phenomenological language, personifcation and hyperbole is familiar to anyone who knows a language.
 
cont.
Both is speech and in writing, we take people at their word, unless we have some reason to believe otherwise. Likewise, we should interpret the Bible literally unless one of the following conditions are met:
  1. The Bible tells us that it is not literal. John 10:6 says, “This *figure *Jesus used with them.” Matthew 13:33 says Jesus “told them another parable” (a parable is an illustrative story that is not necessarily factual).
  2. The literal interpretation goes against clear common sense. By clear common sense, we mean that if a person interprets a particular passage literally we would questions his sanity. Jesus calls Herod a “fox” in Luke 13:32. Few would read this verse and conclude: “A bushy-tailed, pointy eared, four-legged mamman names Herod was a ruler at the time of Jesus.” To take some passages literally is against reason.
I have to add here that we must distinguish interpretations that are against reason, and therefore impossible, from those that are beyone reason, but still possible with God. It is ont against reason that God became a man, or that ordinary bread and wine are changed into Jesus’ body and blood. These are miracles beyond our common sense and experience, but they are not madness.
  1. The literal interpretation goes against known facts. For a long time, people read the passage in Joshua 10:13-14 about the sun standing still as teaching the sun goes around the earth. When it was proven the earth goes around the sun, the literal interpretations was shown to be impossible. Joshua was describing the sun phenomenologically, or as it appears. Many of the alleged “errors” in Scripture can be answered by a basic knowledge of English grammar and the common figures of speech. Nothing in the Bible can contradict scientific or mathematical truths. Nothing we know as certain from science of mathematics can contradict the Bible. Truth cannot contradict truth. The same God who inspired the Bible also created the u niverse and the laws of nature. If we see a contradiction between the Bible and science, then we have either misread the Bible or misunderstood science.
  2. The literal interpretation would make God contradict Himself. For example, Jesus says in Matthew 23:9 “call no man your father.” But just before that Jesus had repeated the commandment, “honor your father and mother” (Matthew 19:19) and referred to Abraham as “father” (Matthew 3:9). St. Paul calls himself “father” to the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:15) and to the runaway slave, Onesimus (Philemon 10). Taking Matthew 23:9 literally would make Scripture contradict itself. Jesus is using byperbole to emphasize that divine authority exceeds human authority.
Botton line: If ordinary language does not point to a figurative interpretation, AND if none of the above conditions are present, then we should interpret passages LITERALLY unless there is a compelling argument to interpret them otherwise.

The account of Jonah and the whale is a good example. None of the ordinary figures of speech apply, nor are any of the four conditions above present. Therefore, unless there exists a compelling case - drawn clearly from the text and the context - to interpret this story figuratively, we should take it literally. It’s not enough to say, “Well, this story seems incredible, therefore it must be a parable.” This is merely a rationalistic prejudice. The story of Jonah and the whale presents no problem for the person of faith.
 
rc,
In Biblical exegesis, the phrase sensus plenior is used to describe the “deeper meaning intended by God” but not intended by the human author.

The phrase originates from the Latin, and means “fuller sense”. The implication is that more meaning can be found within Scripture than that which derives from understanding the circumstances in which the original was written. It corresponds to Rabbinical interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures — remez (“hint”), drash (“search”), and/or sod (“secret”) — whereby ‘deeper meaning’ is drawn out or derived from the text.

Conservative Christians have used this term to mean the larger or whole teaching of scripture.

Here is a great website for more information on Interpretation of Sacred Scripture and sensus plenior.

salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/wordofgod/learninggodsword7.cfm
 
By the way, the Catholic Church experienced all of this then, understood of this then, knew exactly the meaning then, and can teach it to you now.
 
Always_For_Him said:
By the way, the Catholic Church experienced all of this then, understood of this then, knew exactly the meaning then, and can teach it to you now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your responses. Can you verify that my other posts are or are not sensus plenior?
By the way, the Catholic Church experienced all of this then, understood of this then, knew exactly the meaning then, and can teach it to you now.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of any documentation of the story of Tamar as a a shadow of the birth of Christ?

Thanks.
 
rc,
I am not even remotely knowledgable enough about Catholocism to possibly think I could teach you too much. I trust the 2,000 years of magisterium, Church interpretations that were (and still are) taught the same as they were taught to us by Jesus through his Sacred Word and Sacred Traditions. They have never changed. They are what we recorded in the Bible for all of Christianity. I trust the 2,000 years of schollarly theologans who have studied, discected and researched the Truth over and over again and have NEVER come up with anything different. I trust that the 2,000 year rich history of the Catholic Church who has always understood the deeper meanings of Scripture and who teaches us what they are and what they mean. The Catholic Church will correctly teach you sensus plenior and the Four Senses of Scripture since they are the ones that received the Teachings and Traditions of Christ, understood the levels of them and recorded them for us. Who better to understand and teach you than the Catholic Church.

It is the heretics and the Reformers who came up with different beliefs. Luther was out in left field. There is a lot of study you can do on Luther that would probably make you wonder why anyone could believe anything he said. I especially trust in the magisterium, and in the successors of Peter and the Apostles over anything that Luther or any of the Reformers would create 1500 years later. Jesus founded one Church - His Church on Peter and the Apostles, told them to go forth and teach, told them He would Guide his Church, and He still is! I feel peace in the fact that NOTHING has changed, no doctrine or interpretation of Sacred Scripture has changed since Jesus gave it to us. That is as pure as you can get. 1500 years after Christ, men came along and changed everything away from the True teachings/True Church of Christ - changed doctrine, changed interpretation, dropped determined inspired books from the Bible, created Sola Scriptura, and much more that has created the chaos of thousands of Protestant denominations, all with different beliefs, all with different interpretations of Scripture, all thinking they are the correct interpreters of the Bible that the Catholic Church gave them. In the last 500 years, Protestantism has re-defined Scripture, re-interpreted Scripture, dropped Scripture, dropped Sacraments, changed so much from the initial beliefs that Protestantism was founded on. None of them agree with eachother really, except on Sola Scriptura, which is NOT Biblical! It was created in the 1500’s by Martin Luther. The Bible was written in 397 AD, Christianity was around for almost 400 years before that. Not everything is in the Bible. The Bible even tells us that. It also says to follow the teachings and TRADITIONS as given to you. We did then, we still do now. Protestants don’t. The Catholic Church has 2,000 years of rich history, teaching and scholarship. The Protestant Churches have 500 (most have less than 300) years of changed teachings, self-interpretations that keep getting re-interpreted and keep changing.
 
I appreciate your chat, but I am no closer to talking with someone who knows. Thanks.
 
Give it time. Someone will be able to address your questions. My knowledge of the meaning of the story of Tamar is in regards to not using birth control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top