"The Main Things are the Plain Things" Biblical?

[RyanL]

In point of fact, Calvary Chapel says “get baptized if you wanna. if you don’t…don’t.”

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

RIGHT ON E-A MAN! Of course, the gaping hole in your positions is that without the Holy Catholic Church, how are we to know what “scriptures” are? What infallible source do YOU use to determine what scriptures are? Yourself? Your particular faith group? (This is a question you can’t really answer without admitting that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition that nullifies the Word of God, so I’m not expecting you to.)

The problem I have with the concept of “the main things are the plain things” is twofold: first, it assumes that in fact everyone agrees on what the “main things” are, and obviously this is not the case (to-wit: listen to a member of the Church of Christ and a Southern Baptist talk about baptism); and second, it posits Christ’s message against Himself, suggesting that there are essential teachings of Christ and there are nonessential teachings of Christ. I guess I believe in a Christ whose entire life and whose entire story is essential, and thank God that entire story is preserved to us in the Holy Catholic Church. If you are content, however, to eliminate His teachings, then that is your business. Go in peace.

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

What did the early church use for a Bible before the Canon of Scripture was set? They used the letters of the apostles and the Gospels as they became available. They also used other texts which are no longer used i.e. the Church in Alexandria used to read at least one letter from Clement at least 80 years after he died. The point is that the Canon developed over time. It was because of acceptance that the scriptures recommended themselves. Your view of the RCC “giving” us the Bible is incorrect. I will later cite some reputable sources on this.

Your position is reliant on an infallible magesterium that has no basis in scripture. It cannot be proven it must be believed de fide.

Peace

 

[Fiat]

EA_Man:

What did the early church use for a Bible before the Canon of Scripture was set? They used the letters of the apostles and the Gospels as they became available. They also used other texts which are no longer used i.e. the Church in Alexandria used to read at least one letter from Clement at least 80 years after he died. The point is that the Canon developed over time. It was because of acceptance that the scriptures recommended themselves. Your view of the RCC “giving” us the Bible is incorrect. I will later cite some reputable sources on this.

Your position is reliant on an infallible magesterium that has no basis in scripture. It cannot be proven it must be believed de fide.

Peace

Whose decision was it to use, as you allege, “letters of the apostles and the Gospels as they became available.” Do you think these letters were nicely bound in church pews as believers filed in every Sunday? E-A Man, are you sure you want to traverse this road?

You say the scriptures “recommended themselves”? So, is this why the gnostics found such truth in writings like the Gospel of Thomas? Is this notion of scriptures recommending themselves also applicable to sacred Hindu texts? The Koran? The Book of Mormon?

The same source that “recommended” scriptures to the faithful in the early Church is still recommending them today, E-A Man. Her name is the Holy Catholic Church. And although you may be able to bandage your conscience by clinging to what you perceive as the “main things,” something rings hollow in your own spirituality, or else you wouldn’t be here. I assure you, E-A Man, there is fullness and truth in Holy Mother Church, and it is beautiful…

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

Whose decision was it to use, as you allege, “letters of the apostles and the Gospels as they became available.” Do you think these letters were nicely bound in church pews as believers filed in every Sunday? E-A Man, are you sure you want to traverse this road?

You say the scriptures “recommended themselves”? So, is this why the gnostics found such truth in writings like the Gospel of Thomas? Is this notion of scriptures recommending themselves also applicable to sacred Hindu texts? The Koran? The Book of Mormon?

The same source that “recommended” scriptures to the faithful in the early Church is still recommending them today, E-A Man. Her name is the Holy Catholic Church. And although you may be able to bandage your conscience by clinging to what you perceive as the “main things,” something rings hollow in your own spirituality, or else you wouldn’t be here. I assure you, E-A Man, there is fullness and truth in Holy Mother Church, and it is beautiful…

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

So Scripture interpreted through an infallible magesterium is preferable to Scripture Alone?

How have you reached the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church possesses “the Truth” since there are other churches that also claim infallibility (Eastern Orthodox, for example)?

How can I reach that conclusion since I cannot, according to Rome, be trusted to interpret scripture correctly, how can I correctly reach the conclusion that the RCC is the Pillar of Truth?

Peace

 

[RyanL]

EA_Man:

So Scripture interpreted through an infallible magesterium is preferable to Scripture Alone?

How have you reached the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church possesses “the Truth” since there are other churches that also claim infallibility (Eastern Orthodox, for example)?

How can I reach that conclusion since I cannot, according to Rome, be trusted to interpret scripture correctly, how can I correctly reach the conclusion that the RCC is the Pillar of Truth?

Peace

Scripture was never intended to be read in isolation from the Church. That is where your logic is failing.

How can you reach the conclusion? Same way we do. Start by doing the following: don’t read the Bible as a divine book (this prophesy we’re “not allowed to interpret on our own” - which is false, by the way), but rather as a history book. See that Christ started a Church. Investigate which Church that was. Look to that Church to tell you how to read/interpret the Bible. See that the Bible is the inerrent word of God.

Good luck!
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

And yes, Scripture interpreted through an infallible magisterium is preferable to scripture alone. If the magisterium IS, in fact, infallible - how could it NOT be preferable?!?

RyanL

 

[jpusateri]

EA_Man:

So Scripture interpreted through an infallible magesterium is preferable to Scripture Alone?

Yes!

EA_Man:

How have you reached the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church possesses “the Truth” since there are other churches that also claim infallibility (Eastern Orthodox, for example)?

I could claim infallibility for myself if I wanted to. Didn’t Martin Luther says that we, each of us, is our own pope? However only the Catholic church and it’s head has been around for the requisite 2000 years, being founded by the Eternal Word. How do we know? Scripture tells us this explicitly. How do we know Scripture is inspired? The same Church tells us so. It’s self-authenticating.

EA_Man:

How can I reach that conclusion since I cannot, according to Rome, be trusted to interpret scripture correctly, how can I correctly reach the conclusion that the RCC is the Pillar of Truth?

Peace

You do not need to interpret scripture, but read it, understand it and LEARN from the magisterium HOW to understand it. The magisterium has the understanding that the Church has had for centuries. Scripture is by no means unambiguous. No written document can be. The human brain always adds a perspective to it. That is what the magisterium is for.

 

[EA_Man]

RyanL:

Scripture was never intended to be read in isolation from the Church. That is where your logic is failing.

How can you reach the conclusion? Same way we do. Start by doing the following: don’t read the Bible as a divine book (this prophesy we’re “not allowed to interpret on our own” - which is false, by the way), but rather as a history book. See that Christ started a Church. Investigate which Church that was. Look to that Church to tell you how to read/interpret the Bible. See that the Bible is the inerrent word of God.

Good luck!
RyanL

So the way to “see the Bible as the inerrant Word of God” (i.e. divine) is to NOT “read it as a divine book”?

Pardon my saying this but, you’re talking in a circle.

What you’re saying is excercise your private judgement to discover that you shouldn’t be excercising your private judgement.

By necessity one has to use private judgement in evaluating the claims of any faith or denomination. So on the one hand you condemn the conclusion (the non-RCC choice of denominational affiliation) reached by Protestants because they use their private judgement. And on the other hand, you insist that they use the very same principle which you condmened previously to reach a different conclusion (yours).

Care to clarify?

Peace

 

[MariaG]

posted by EA_Man

How can I reach that conclusion since I cannot, according to Rome, be trusted to interpret scripture correctly, how can I correctly reach the conclusion that the RCC is the Pillar of Truth?

You at the moment stand on Scripture alone, Yes?

How do you reconcile Scripture that tells us that:

:bible1: 1Tim 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

if Scripture is true, but the Catholic Church is wrong, how can Scripture be correct? As well as you will notice, he wasn’t writing so they could have a handbook of what to do, but so they could have some guidance if he was delayed. Their main guidance was supposed to be from a person, not writings.

But that digresses from the topic of the thread:

**So how can the “main things be the plain things” when baptism, what it is, what it does, cannot be agreed upon from Scripture alone?
**
The topic of this thread, the claim by many protestants is that the main things are the plain things. Things that are so plain, anyone can understand them and they need no one to interpret them. Yet this is dishonest when you yourself say baptism is a “main” thing yet there is no consensus among protestants on what baptism is and what it does not to mention if one must in obedience even do it. At least one “main thing” is not plain.

Maybe I am mistaken, do you agree with the statement or idea that protestants for the most part are in agreement? That the “main things are the plain things”? Maybe you do not believe this and I mistook your posts? Do you think the “main things are the plain things”?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[RyanL]

Perhaps CA can explain it in a more elequent way…
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

…
** The Bible as Historical Truth**

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
**
A Spiral Argument**

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

 

[deb1]

MariaG:

You at the moment stand on Scripture alone, Yes?

How do you reconcile Scripture that tells us that:

:bible1: 1Tim 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

if Scripture is true, but the Catholic Church is wrong, how can Scripture be correct? As well as you will notice, he wasn’t writing so they could have a handbook of what to do, but so they could have some guidance if he was delayed. Their main guidance was supposed to be from a person, not writings.

But that digresses from the topic of the thread:

So how can the “main things be the plain things” when baptism, what it is, what it does, cannot be agreed upon from Scripture alone?

The topic of this thread, the claim by many protestants is that the main things are the plain things. Things that are so plain, anyone can understand them and they need no one to interpret them. Yet this is dishonest when you yourself say baptism is a “main” thing yet there is no consensus among protestants on what baptism is and what it does not to mention if one must in obedience even do it. At least one “main thing” is not plain.

Maybe I am mistaken, do you agree with the statement or idea that protestants for the most part are in agreement? That the “main things are the plain things”? Maybe you do not believe this and I mistook your posts? Do you think the “main things are the plain things”?

God Bless,
Maria

Maybe EA could give us a list of believes common to all Protestants? Of course, being in disagreement with the Catholic church doesn’t count.

 

[EA_Man]

RyanL:

Perhaps CA can explain it in a more elequent way…

In a more eloquent way, perhaps, but not in a more logical way unfortunately.
CA:

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
**
A Spiral Argument**

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

How is the Church’s alleged infallibility “proven” by the historical reliability of the Bible?

It certainly follows that a church was founded. But from where is an independent attestation of the Church’s infalliblity introduced?

Additionally, this explanation of CA’s only makes my point for me (thank you); that “The Main Things Are The Plain Things”.
CA:

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection…

The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Your very own Catholic Answers instructions bear witness to the sufficiency of scripture read AS HISTORY to convince and convict the unbeliever as to their sinfulness and of the reality and validity of Jesus Christ’s Divinity.

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

deb1:

Maybe EA could give us a list of believes common to all Protestants? Of course, being in disagreement with the Catholic church doesn’t count.

I can’t possibly list all of the common beliefs, that would take too long.

Since Catholicism has *unity of belief *it would be much easier on everybody if you would point out the differences, if any, in beliefs among Catholics.

Just a few questions then:

Do Catholics regard the Creation account as literal or allegorical?

Which of the ecumenical councils are considered infallible?

As a related topic; please identify the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

Do Roman Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant or not?

Since that’s only four questions and Catholics have unity of faith this shouldn’t take too long.

Thanks

Peace

 

[RyanL]

EA_Man:

In a more eloquent way, perhaps, but not in a more logical way unfortunately.

The failure is not with their logic…

EA_Man:

How is the Church’s alleged infallibility “proven” by the historical reliability of the Bible?

It certainly follows that a church was founded. But from where is an independent attestation of the Church’s infalliblity introduced?

Perhaps smaller steps are required. History: Jesus died. Jesus rose again. Jesus was/is God. Jesus founded a Church. Jesus promised to guide that Church infallibly until the end of time. The Bible says this as history, and as such it has been proven reliable. The Church He founded still exists, and has never contradicted itself when teaching infallibly on faith and morals in 2000 years. Only one Church claims this. Only one Church has the history to attempt to claim this. Only one Church has the consistancy of theology to claim this. Only one Church can make sense of *all *of the scriptures. Only one Church bound the Bible. This Church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, with the authority of God, proclaimed the Bible to be divinely inspired and inerrant. Like it or not, you believe what you do about the Bible because a group of Catholics a millenium and a half ago said you should.

EA_Man:

Additionally, this explanation of CA’s only makes my point for me (thank you); that “The Main Things Are The Plain Things”.

Your very own Catholic Answers instructions bear witness to the sufficiency of scripture read AS HISTORY to convince and convict the unbeliever as to their sinfulness and of the reality and validity of Jesus Christ’s Divinity.

Silly conclusion to make, since all of the evidence is against you. You still haven’t answered the charge that this “Main/Plain” idea of yours reduces some of Christ’s teachings (the un-plain ones) to “not necessary”. Did Christ really waste that much time and energy during His public ministry?

Peace,
RyanL

 

[EA_Man]

RyanL:

Only one Church can make sense of *all *of the scriptures. Only one Church bound the Bible. This Church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, with the authority of God, proclaimed the Bible to be divinely inspired and inerrant. Like it or not, you believe what you do about the Bible because a group of Catholics a millenium and a half ago said you should.

Since the Catholic Church can make sense of all of the scriptures and they have made that teaching available to you presumably, can you answer this question: is it the position of the RCC that the Creation Account is allegorical or literal?

Also is it the position of the RCC that the Bible is inerrant (without error)?

Thanks and Peace

 

[RyanL]

EA_Man:

Since the Catholic Church can make sense of all of the scriptures and they have made that teaching available to you presumably, can you answer this question: is it the position of the RCC that the Creation Account is allegorical or literal?

‘Can’ and ‘has’ are two different words. If/When the Church infallibly interprets the Creation Account, rest assured that it will be correct. Since it has not yet done so, this is a fallacious argument. Attacking the Church simply because they haven’t addressed all of your questions infallibly is a straw man.

EA_Man:

Also is it the position of the RCC that the Bible is inerrant (without error)?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

[107](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/107.htm’) The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

May the Lord bless you and keep you,
RyanL

 

[thessalonian]

EA_Man:

: is it the position of the RCC that the Creation Account is allegorical or literal?

Yes. (Both can and are true)

EA_Man:

Also is it the position of the RCC that the Bible is inerrant (without error)?

Yes.

 

[EA_Man]

thessalonian:

Yes. (Both can and are true)

Yes.

Interesting that two of you answered, but with somewhat different, but not contradictory, answers. Although I would like to know if the RCC’s literal AND allegorical view of Creation stipulates 6 -24 hour days or not.

Also, the actual view of Biblical inerrancy as taught by the RCC is that Bible is inerrant on matters of salvific import. Interesting though that the RCC had a different view of Biblical inerrancy during the Galileo episode. In fact, the tribunal that “strongly suspected” Galileo “of heresy” concluded:

“The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.”

The question that I have is this: if Rome does not consider ALL of scripture inerrant, except in matters of salvation, and Rome’s doctrines have always been the same (semper idem), by what reasoning could an assertion of scientific observation have been “contrary to scripture” if scripture according to Rome does not make inerrant claims about matters of scientific import?

In other words if scripture can be in error on matters of science, why did Rome contend that Galileo’s work contradicted scripture?

It seems as though Rome had a different doctrine regarding Biblical inerrancy then than it does now. The fact that Galileo spent 9 years under house arrest and his books were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books until 1835, indicates that Rome did consider scripture inerrant on matters of science, and only through the embarassment of its mistakes did it change its views.

Peace

 

[RyanL]

This is simply poor history. Perhaps you should try another link:
catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Now - perhaps I misspoke a in my previous thread, or perhaps I was too vague. Certain parts of the Creation Account have been infallibly interpreted, and I’m sure you agree with the findings: 1. Humans have souls, and God created them. Before Adam and Eve, there were no human souls. 2. Adam and Eve were real people. As far as I know, that is the extent to which the Church has interpreted this account. The 6 24hr days has not been so interpreted, and so it is left up to us to read what we will. So, in that respect, the Creation Account has not been infallibly interpreted. To try and force an answer is to misunderstand Catholic teachings and Sacred Tradition.

As far as inerrancy, I think you misunderstand the term as Catholics use it. Inerrancy does not mean that the bible can be literalisticly interpreted, which is to say that every word has to have the plain sense meaning and no other meaning whatsoever. The bible is inerrant in that in must be literally interpreted, or rather we must read the bible and apply what we know of the author’s literary intent. If it says “Raining Cats and Dogs”, we must read “Raining very hard”. If it says the Sun goes around the Earth (as it appears to in certain passages), we must understand that it is written that way because it is the author’s observational perspective and he is relaying that perspective, and not unveiling a cosmic truth. The Sun indeed does *appear *to orbit the Earth, and would have to the early writers. It’s true that some in the time of Galileo didn’t understand this (and took the literalistic approach), but the Holy Spirit would not let the Church dogmatically define anything of the sort. If you read the link, you probably now have a little better grasp on the controversy.

Again, the Bible is not a science text, nor a text on natural history. The Bible is the revealing of God to His people, and He has ensured that revelation is inerrent in this regard. To try and force the Bible to give us a cure for cancer or explain what happened to the dinosaurs is to misuse the text - that’s not what it was made for. As far as I know, the position of the Church has always been this in regards to inerrancy. There were certainly some within the Church who disagreed (like the quote you gave), but it has never been a binding teaching.

What else?

RyanL

 

[thessalonian]

Ryan has done a good job summing things up for you. Allegory does not imply false. Jesus used the story of Jonah “allegorically” to indicate it was a forshadowing of his death and resurrection. “just as jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale, so the son of man will spend three days in the earth”. Yet this does not mean the story of Jonah is not true. It just shows how in control God is. Many protestants deny allegory exists in the Bible and so miss out on alot of good food in scripture.

Blessings